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 .
Response to Amendment
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) of claims 24 31 38-45 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to those claims.
Applicant requests that the double patenting rejection be held in abeyance. The Office does not hold double patenting rejections in abeyance. See MPEP 804(I)(B)(1).
Examiner acknowledges the amendments to the claims received on 7/22/2026 have been entered, and that no new matter has been added.
Response to Arguments
Argument 1: Applicant argues on page 10 in the filing on 7/22/2026 that the cited prior art does not teach the amended “data from previously conducted experiments” in the independent claims.
Response to Argument 1: Respectfully, the combination of Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter teaches the above. Another embodiment of Wohlstadter teaches a “menu suitable for selecting options for… experimental analysis [0252],” having first, second, and third hierarchical menus. The another embodiment of Wohlstadter continues to describe experimental analysis as “results of experiments after they have been conducted.” See rejection below for more details.
This meets the claim limitations as currently claimed, and Applicant's Argument 1 filed on 7/22/2026 is not persuasive. Applicant’s remaining statements regarding the remaining independent and dependent claims are moot or not persuasive for the reasons stated above.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-11, 13, 16, 18, 24, 31, and 38-45 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21 and 23 of U.S. Patent No. US10936163B2, in view of prior art US20210240312A1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims recite substantially the same elements. The dissimilar feature of claim 1 of the instant application and claim 21 of patent US10936163B2 are underlined below.
Instant application 18/407,398
Patent Number US 10936163 B2
Claim 1:
A method executed by at least one processor for navigating a path of hierarchical menu levels adapted for output to a graphical user interface (GUI), the method comprising:
providing, by at least one processor, a first command for a first menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on a first portion of a user interface (UI) display; and
providing, by the at least one processor, a second command for a second menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on the first portion of the UI display in response to a user's selection,
wherein at least one of user-selectable menu items of the first menu is adapted to be displayed on a second portion of the UI display and comprises one or more of a past-selected menu item and a past-unselected menu item of the hierarchical menu levels and is adapted to be concurrently viewed with the second menu in the first portion; and
further wherein the one or more user-selectable menu items of the second menu comprise menu items provided for establishment of one or more criteria to be applied against data resulting from one or more previously conducted experiments.
Claim 4: The method of claim 1, wherein the experiment is an electrochemiluminescence (ECL)-based assay.
Claim 24:
A method executed by at least one processor for navigating a path of hierarchical menu levels adapted for output to a graphical user interface (GUI), the method comprising:
providing, by at least one processor, a first command for a first menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on a first portion of a user interface (UI) display; and
providing, by the at least one processor, a second command for a second menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on the first portion of the UI display in response to a user's selection,
wherein at least one of user-selectable menu items of the first menu is adapted to be displayed on a second portion of the UI display and comprise one or more of a past-selected menu item and a past-unselected menu item of the hierarchical menu levels and is adapted to be concurrently viewed with the second menu in first portion; and
further wherein the one or more user-selectable menu items of the second menu comprise menu items that provide at least one option to create, organize, and/or aggregate data resulted from one or more previously conducted experiments.
Claim 31:
A method executed by at least one processor for navigating a path of hierarchical menu levels adapted for output to a graphical user interface (GUI), the method comprising:
providing, by at least one processor, a first command for a first menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on a first portion of a user interface (UI) display; and
providing, by the at least one processor, a second command for a second menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on the first portion of the UI display in response to a user's selection,
wherein at least one of user-selectable menu items of the first menu is adapted to be displayed on a second portion of the UI display and comprise one or more of a past-selected menu item and a past-unselected menu item of the hierarchical menu levels and is adapted to be concurrently viewed with the second menu in the first portion; and
further wherein the one or more user-selectable menu items of the second menu comprise menu items provide at least one option to review and/or analyze data resulting from one or more previously conducted experiments.
Claim 38:
A method executed by at least one processor for navigating a path of hierarchical menu levels adapted for output to a graphical user interface (GUI), the method comprising:
providing, by at least one processor, a first command for a first menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on a first portion of a user interface (UI) display; and
providing, by the at least one processor, a second command for a second menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on the first portion of the UI display in response to a user's selection,
wherein at least one of user-selectable menu items of the first menu is adapted to be displayed on a second portion of the UI display and comprise one or more of a past-selected menu item and a past-unselected menu item of the hierarchical menu levels and is adapted to be concurrently viewed with the second menu in first portion; and
further wherein the one or more user-selectable menu items of the second menu comprise menu items provide at least one option to manipulate data resulting from one or more previously conducted experiments.
Claim 42: The method of claim 38, wherein the one or more experiments include an assay-based experiment.
Claim 43: The method of claim 42, wherein the assay-based experiment is an electrochemiluminescence (ECL)-based assay.
Claim 45:
A method executed by one or more processors for navigating a path of hierarchical menu levels adapted for output to a graphical user interface (GUI), the method comprising:
providing, by one or more processors, a first command for a first menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on a first portion of a user interface (UI) display; and
providing, by the one or more processors, a second command for a second menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on the first portion of the UI display in response to a user's selection,
wherein at least one of user-selectable menu items of the first menu is adapted to be displayed on a second portion of the UI display and comprise one or more of a past-selected menu item and a past-unselected menu item of the hierarchical menu levels and is adapted to be concurrently viewed with the second menu in the first portion; and
further wherein the one or more user-selectable menu items of the second menu comprise data resulting from one or more experiments previously conducted and at least one corresponding indicator.
Claim 21: [limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 21 depends] A method executed by at least one processor for navigating a path of hierarchical menu levels adapted for output to a user interface (UI), the method comprising:
providing, by at least one processor, a first command for a first menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on a first portion of a user interface (UI) display; and
providing, by the at least one processor, a second command for a second menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on the first portion of the UI display in response to a user's selection,
wherein, in response to the user's selection, the first menu is adapted to be displayed on the second portion of the UI display and comprises one or more of a past-selected menu item and a past-unselected menu item of the first menu and is adapted to be concurrently viewed in the second portion with the second menu in the first portion.
[limitations from Claim 21]: …wherein the computer application comprises an application for manipulating, designing, performing, reviewing, measuring, or analyzing an experiment.
-Claim 21’s functions of “manipulating, designing, performing, reviewing, measuring, or analyzing an experiment,” can be interpreted as the instant claim’s “criterion” for previously conducted experiments. Claim 21 is silent regarding the functions as items in a second menu.
-Prior art US20210240312A1 [0016-0017] discloses “a second menu of user-selectable choices.”
Claim 23: …wherein the experiment comprises one or more electrochemiluminescence assays.
Claim 21: [limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 21 depends] A method executed by at least one processor for navigating a path of hierarchical menu levels adapted for output to a user interface (UI), the method comprising:
providing, by at least one processor, a first command for a first menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on a first portion of a user interface (UI) display; and
providing, by the at least one processor, a second command for a second menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on the first portion of the UI display in response to a user's selection,
wherein, in response to the user's selection, the first menu is adapted to be displayed on the second portion of the UI display and comprises one or more of a past-selected menu item and a past-unselected menu item of the first menu and is adapted to be concurrently viewed in the second portion with the second menu in the first portion
[limitations from Claim 21]: …wherein the computer application comprises an application for manipulating, designing, performing, reviewing, measuring, or analyzing an experiment.
-Claim 21’s functions of “manipulating, designing, performing, reviewing, measuring, or analyzing an experiment,” can be interpreted as the instant claim’s “option to create, organize, and/or aggregate data” of previously conducted experiments. For example, performing an experiment creates data from an experiment. Claim 21 is silent regarding the functions as items in a second menu.
-Prior art US20210240312A1 [0016-0017] discloses “a second menu of user-selectable choices.”
Claim 21: [limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 21 depends] A method executed by at least one processor for navigating a path of hierarchical menu levels adapted for output to a user interface (UI), the method comprising:
providing, by at least one processor, a first command for a first menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on a first portion of a user interface (UI) display; and
providing, by the at least one processor, a second command for a second menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on the first portion of the UI display in response to a user's selection
wherein, in response to the user's selection, the first menu is adapted to be displayed on the second portion of the UI display and comprises one or more of a past-selected menu item and a past-unselected menu item of the first menu and is adapted to be concurrently viewed in the second portion with the second menu in the first portion
[limitations from Claim 21]: …wherein the computer application comprises an application for manipulating, designing, performing, reviewing, measuring, or analyzing an experiment.
-Claim 21’s functions of “manipulating, designing, performing, reviewing, measuring, or analyzing an experiment,” can be interpreted as the instant claim’s “option to review and/or analyze data” of experiments. Claim 21 is silent regarding the functions as items in a second menu.
-Prior art US20210240312A1 [0016-0017] discloses “a second menu of user-selectable choices.”
Claim 21: [limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 21 depends] A method executed by at least one processor for navigating a path of hierarchical menu levels adapted for output to a user interface (UI), the method comprising:
providing, by at least one processor, a first command for a first menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on a first portion of a user interface (UI) display; and
providing, by the at least one processor, a second command for a second menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on the first portion of the UI display in response to a user's selection,
wherein, in response to the user's selection, the first menu is adapted to be displayed on the second portion of the UI display and comprises one or more of a past-selected menu item and a past-unselected menu item of the first menu and is adapted to be concurrently viewed in the second portion with the second menu in the first portion,
[limitations from Claim 21]: …wherein the computer application comprises an application for manipulating, designing, performing, reviewing, measuring, or analyzing an experiment.
-Claim 21’s functions of “manipulating, designing, performing, reviewing, measuring, or analyzing an experiment,” can be interpreted as the instant claim’s “option to manipulate data” of experiments. For example, manipulating an experiment manipulates the experiment’s data. Claim 21 is silent regarding the functions as items in a second menu.
-Prior art US20210240312A1 [0016-0017] discloses “a second menu of user-selectable choices.”
Claim 23: …wherein the experiment comprises one or more electrochemiluminescence assays.
Claim 23: …wherein the experiment comprises one or more electrochemiluminescence assays.
Claim 21: [limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 21 depends] A method executed by at least one processor for navigating a path of hierarchical menu levels adapted for output to a user interface (UI), the method comprising:
providing, by at least one processor, a first command for a first menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on a first portion of a user interface (UI) display; and
providing, by the at least one processor, a second command for a second menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on the first portion of the UI display in response to a user's selection,
wherein, in response to the user's selection, the first menu is adapted to be displayed on the second portion of the UI display and comprises one or more of a past-selected menu item and a past-unselected menu item of the first menu and is adapted to be concurrently viewed in the second portion with the second menu in the first portion,
[limitations from Claim 21]: …wherein the computer application comprises an application for manipulating, designing, performing, reviewing, measuring, or analyzing an experiment.
-Claim 21’s functions of “manipulating, designing, performing, reviewing, measuring, or analyzing an experiment,” can be interpreted as the instant claim’s “data related to experiments previously conducted,” and an “indicator” of experiments. Claim 21 is silent regarding the functions as items in a second menu.
-Prior art US20210240312A1 [0016-0017] discloses “a second menu of user-selectable choices.”
As seen in the above table, patent US 10936163 B2’s claim 21 discloses all the limitations of the instant claims 1, 24, 31, 38, and 45, except for the limitation “further wherein the one or more user-selectable menu items of the second menu comprises menu items…” However, prior art US20210240312A1 suggests that the deficient limitations are known. Specifically, prior art US20210240312A1 paragraphs [0016-0017] discloses “a second menu of user-selectable choices.” It would have been obvious to combine the features of patent US 10936163 B2’s claim 21 with the second menu of prior art US20210240312A1, to have the features displayed as selectable second menu items. One would be motivated to combine patent US 10936163 B2 and prior art US20210240312A1 to have the benefit of a more organized interface, which reduces clutter, and increases user satisfaction.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 8-11, 13, 16, 18 are dependent claims and inherit the double patenting issues from independent claim 1.
Claims 39-44 are dependent claims and inherit the double patenting issues from independent claim 38.
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 (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.
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.
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 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 13, 16, 18, 24, 31, and 38-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wohlstadter et al., Patent Application Publication Number US 20210240312 A (hereinafter “Wohlstadter”), in view of another embodiment in Wohlstadter.
Claim 1: Wohlstadter teaches “A method executed by at least one processor for navigating a path of hierarchical menu levels adapted for output to a graphical user interface (GUI) (i.e. a method executed by at least one processor for navigating a path of hierarchical menu levels adapted for output to a graphical user interface (GUI) [Wohlstadter 0015]), the method comprising:
providing, by at least one processor, a first command for a first menu of one or more user- selectable menu items to be displayed on a first portion of a user interface (UI) display (i.e. a first command for a first menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on a first portion of a user interface (UI) display [Wohlstadter 0812, see also Fig. 2A-2C, and corresponding paragraphs 0217-0242]); and
providing, by the at least one processor, a second command for a second menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on the first portion of the UI display in response to a user's selection (i.e. a second command for a second menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on the first portion of the UI display in response to a user's selection [Wohlstadter 0812, see also Fig. 2A-2C, and corresponding paragraphs 0217-0242]),
wherein at least one of user-selectable menu items of the first menu is adapted to be displayed on a second portion of the UI display and comprises one or more of a past-selected menu item and a past-unselected menu item of the hierarchical menu levels and is adapted to be concurrently viewed with the second menu in the first portion (i.e. wherein the first menu is adapted to be displayed on a second portion of the UI display and comprises one or more of a past-selected menu item and a past-unselected menu item of the hierarchical menu levels and is adapted to be concurrently viewed with the second menu in the first portion [Wohlstadter 0812, see also Fig. 2A-2C, and corresponding paragraphs 0217-0242]); and
further wherein the one or more user-selectable menu items of the second menu comprise menu items (i.e. a default menu suitable for selecting options for experimental design or experimental analysis… default menu may be a first menu, second menu, third menu, and/or any other menu from a level in a hierarchical menu tree [Wohlstadter 0252] note: from 0252, the menu levels disclosed can be on any menu level in the hierarchical menu tree, including the second menu) provided for establishment of one or more criteria to be applied against… one or more… experiments (i.e. FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating a user interface workflow for selecting an assay method in one embodiment [Wohlstadter 0027, Fig. 7]… Assay Method—The method by which an assay is performed, including but not limited to: 1. Instrument protocol that should be executed and the parameters for execution of that protocol [Wohlstadter 0377] note: an “assay” is an experiment. Fig. 7 shows selection of assay methods in multiple hierarchal menus. Assay methods include criterions for which experiments are to be performed, such as protocols and parameters. Note2: this is interpreted as intended use).”
This embodiment in Wohlstadter teaches a hierarchal menu for configuring experiments (see [0812], above). Wohlstadter does not explicitly teach a hierarchal menu for configuring data from experiment results: “data resulting from” one or more “previously conducted” experiments. In another embodiment of Wohlstadter, Wohlstadter teaches a menu for configuring options criteria for experimental analysis/results:
Another embodiment in Wohlstadter teaches “further wherein the one or more user-selectable menu items of the second menu comprise menu items provided for establishment of one or more criteria to be applied against data resulting from one or more previously conducted experiments (i.e. a default menu suitable for selecting options for… experimental analysis … the default menu may be a first menu, second menu, third menu, and/or any other menu from a level in a hierarchical menu tree [Wohlstadter 0252]… the experimental analysis module may permit other team members to access results of experiments after they have been conducted [Wohlstadter 0310] note: 0252 teaches a hierarchical menu for options criteria for experimental analysis. 0310 teaches that the experimental analysis is upon experiment results, or data from completed experiments).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hierarchal menu of Wohlstadter to include a hierarchal menu to display options to configure or modify experiment results as disclosed by another embodiment of Wohlstadter.
One would be motivated to combine Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the hierarchal menu and experimental options menu, in order to reduce the number of menus displayed, reduce UI clutter, and better organize options, which results in a more clear UI, which reduces confusion/distractions to the user, which increases user productivity.
Claim 2: Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter teach(es) all the limitations of claim 1, above. Wohlstadter teaches “further comprising providing a module for establishing, recalling, refining, modifying, and/or editing the one or more criteria (Fig. 7 shows assay (experiment) options, which upon selection, edit the experiments. E.g. editing the assay method that includes samples).”
While original Wohlstadter discloses menus for establishing, recalling, refining, modifying, and/or editing one or more experiment criteria [Fig. 7, above], original Wohlstadter is silent regarding the same menus for experiment results. However, the another embodiment of Wohlstadter discloses menu options to modify experiment results. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to modify the menu to include its concepts upon experiment result data.
One would be motivated to combine Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to configure more features, which increases the software’s functionality, which increases feature set users can perform, which increases user flexibility and user retention.
Claim 4: Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter teach(es) all the limitations of claim 1, above. Wohlstadter teaches “wherein the experiment is an electrochemiluminescence (ECL)-based assay (i.e. one or more experiments can include the performance of ECL-based assays [Wohlstadter 0584]).”
Claim 5: Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter teach(es) all the limitations of claim 1, above. Wohlstadter teaches “wherein the one or more criteria provide for filtering, limiting, truncating, and/or customizing (i.e. assay method defines: The assays on the plate; The plate layout; Number of calibrators, controls, and max number of samples; Control, Calibrator, and sample dilutions; Number of replicates for controls, calibrators, and samples; The instrument protocol (incubation time, perform blocker, and/or others). A default Assay Method is provided for every kit, the system software allows the user to create a custom Assay Method [Wohlstadter 0408, Fig. 6])… the one or more experiments.”
Another embodiment of Wohlstadter teaches “wherein the one or more criteria provide for filtering, limiting, truncating, and/or customizing one or more data sets resulting from the one or more previously conducted experiments (i.e. a default menu suitable for selecting options for… experimental analysis … the default menu may be a first menu, second menu, third menu, and/or any other menu from a level in a hierarchical menu tree [Wohlstadter 0252]… the experimental analysis module may permit other team members to access results of experiments after they have been conducted [Wohlstadter 0310] note: the another embodiment of Wohlstadter teaches optionss, or customization, of the results).”
While original Wohlstadter discloses menus for filtering, limiting, truncating, and/or customizing experiment criteria, original Wohlstadter is silent regarding the same menus for experiment results. However, the another embodiment of Wohlstadter discloses menu options to modify experiment results.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to modify the menu to include its concepts upon experiment result data.
One would be motivated to combine Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to configure more features, which increases the software’s functionality, which increases feature set users can perform, which increases user flexibility and user retention.
Claim 8: Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter teach(es) all the limitations of claim 1, above. Wohlstadter teaches “wherein options of the first menu of one or more user-selectable menu items (i.e. a default menu suitable for selecting options for experimental design or experimental analysis… default menu may be a first menu, second menu, third menu, and/or any other menu from a level in a hierarchical menu tree [Wohlstadter 0252] note: from 0252, the menu levels disclosed can be on any menu level in the hierarchical menu tree, including the first menu) include designing one or more criteria, creating one or more new criteria, and/or recalling one or more previously created criteria (i.e. processing shown in this screen may be performed responsive to the DEFINE option (FIG. 5, 512) being executed. The assay method defines: The assays on the plate; The plate layout; Number of calibrators, controls, and max number of samples; Control, Calibrator, and sample dilutions; Number of replicates for controls, calibrators, and samples; The instrument protocol (incubation time, perform blocker, and/or others). A default Assay Method is provided for every kit, the system software allows the user to create a custom Assay Method based on a default [Wohlstadter 0408, Fig. 5-6]).”
Another embodiment of Wohlstadter teaches “wherein options of the first menu of one or more user-selectable menu items include designing one or more criteria, creating one or more new criteria, and/or recalling one or more previously created criteria (i.e. a default menu suitable for selecting options for… experimental analysis … the default menu may be a first menu, second menu, third menu, and/or any other menu from a level in a hierarchical menu tree [Wohlstadter 0252]… the experimental analysis module may permit other team members to access results of experiments after they have been conducted [Wohlstadter 0310] note: the another embodiment of Wohlstadter teaches options, or modification, of the results).”
While original Wohlstadter discloses menus for designing, creating, and/or recalling one or more experiment criteria, original Wohlstadter is silent regarding the same menus for experiment results. However, the another embodiment of Wohlstadter discloses menu options to modify experiment results.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to modify the menu to include its concepts upon experiment result data.
One would be motivated to combine Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to configure more features, which increases the software’s functionality, which increases feature set users can perform, which increases user flexibility and user retention.
Claim 9: Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter teach(es) all the limitations of claim 8, above. Wohlstadter teaches “wherein the options of the first menu of one or more user-selectable menu items include an item to create one or more new criteria, wherein in response to a selection of the item to create one or more new criteria, the first portion is adapted to display options to limit, exclude, and/or flag certain data from the… experiments (i.e. in response to a selection of the Experiment choice from the second subsection 381825, the third subsection 381826 can include the following choices: Create Experiment, Edit Layout, Exclude/Include Data Points [Wohlstadter 0484]).”
Another embodiment of Wohlstadter teaches “wherein the options of the first menu of one or more user-selectable menu items include an item to create one or more new criteria, wherein in response to a selection of the item to create one or more new criteria, the first portion is adapted to display options to limit, exclude, and/or flag certain data from the data resulting from the one or more previously conducted experiments (i.e. a default menu suitable for selecting options for… experimental analysis … the default menu may be a first menu, second menu, third menu, and/or any other menu from a level in a hierarchical menu tree [Wohlstadter 0252]… the experimental analysis module may permit other team members to access results of experiments after they have been conducted [Wohlstadter 0310] note: the another embodiment of Wohlstadter teaches options, or modification, of the results).”
While original Wohlstadter discloses menus to limit, exclude, and/or flag data for one or more experiment criteria, original Wohlstadter is silent regarding the same menus for experiment results. However, the another embodiment of Wohlstadter discloses menu options to modify experiment results.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to modify the menu to include its concepts upon experiment result data.
One would be motivated to combine Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to configure more features, which increases the software’s functionality, which increases feature set users can perform, which increases user flexibility and user retention.
Claim 10: Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter teach(es) all the limitations of claim 8, above. Wohlstadter teaches “wherein the options of the first menu of one or more user-selectable menu items include creating one or more new criteria and the one or more new criteria comprise ECL-related parameters, including one or more of signal, adjusted signal, Signal %CV, calc. concentration, calc. concentration %CV, and/or % Recovery (i.e. processing shown in this screen may be performed responsive to the DEFINE option (FIG. 5, 512) being executed. The assay method defines: The assays on the plate; The plate layout; Number of calibrators, controls, and max number of samples; Control, Calibrator, and sample dilutions; Number of replicates for controls, calibrators, and samples; The instrument protocol (incubation time, perform blocker, and/or others). A default Assay Method is provided for every kit, the system software allows the user to create a custom Assay Method based on a default [Wohlstadter 0408, Fig. 5-6]).”
Another embodiment of Wohlstadter teaches “wherein the options of the first menu of one or more user-selectable menu items include creating one or more new criteria and the one or more new criteria comprise ECL-related parameters, including one or more of signal, adjusted signal, Signal %CV, calc. concentration, calc. concentration %CV, and/or % Recovery (i.e. results are presented and can be viewed… ECL or Calculated Concentration is displayed [Wohlstadter 0421, Fig. 16]).”
One would be motivated to combine Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to configure more features (e.g. results), which increases the software’s functionality, which increases feature set users can perform, which increases user flexibility and user retention.
Claim 13: Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter teach(es) all the limitations of claim 8, above. Wohlstadter teaches “wherein the options of the first menu of one or more user-selectable menu items include creating one or more new criteria and the one or more new criteria can be later recalled, edited, and/or modified, further wherein in response to a selection of recalling one or more previously created criteria, the first portion is adapted to display a criterion from a previously created and saved set of criteria (i.e. processing shown in this screen may be performed responsive to the DEFINE option (FIG. 5, 512) being executed. The assay method defines: The assays on the plate; The plate layout; Number of calibrators, controls, and max number of samples; Control, Calibrator, and sample dilutions; Number of replicates for controls, calibrators, and samples; The instrument protocol (incubation time, perform blocker, and/or others). A default Assay Method is provided for every kit, the system software allows the user to create a custom Assay Method based on a default [Wohlstadter 0408, Fig. 5-6]).”
Claim 16: Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter teach(es) all the limitations of claim 1, above. Wohlstadter teaches “wherein options of the first menu of one or more user-selectable menu items (i.e. a default menu suitable for selecting options for experimental design or experimental analysis… default menu may be a first menu, second menu, third menu, and/or any other menu from a level in a hierarchical menu tree [Wohlstadter 0252] note: from 0252, the menu levels disclosed can be on any menu level in the hierarchical menu tree, including the first menu) include displaying one or more of recent and/or available criteria (i.e. FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating a user interface workflow for selecting an assay method in one embodiment [Wohlstadter 0027, Fig. 7]… Assay Method—The method by which an assay is performed, including but not limited to: 1. Instrument protocol that should be executed and the parameters for execution of that protocol [Wohlstadter 0377] note: an “assay” is an experiment. Fig. 7 shows selection of assay methods in multiple hierarchal menus. Assay methods include criterions for which experiments are to be performed, such as protocols and parameters. Note2: if the criteria displayed, then the criteria is also available).”
Claim 18: Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter teach(es) all the limitations of claim 1, above. Wohlstadter teaches “wherein the UI display further includes an advanced selector, wherein in response to a first selection of the advanced selector, the UI display is adapted to display an advanced context menu that includes advanced menu choices (i.e. advanced context menu 270 may be accessed via an advanced context menu selector 290… advanced context menu 270 provides additional advanced menu items 271 beyond the items appearing in the current menu [Wohlstadter 0258, Fig. 2P]),
wherein the advanced menu choices include an option to display one or more of sets of criteria (i.e. selection of advanced menu items 271 may include items displayed in the current menu in the first (active) portion 204 [Wohlstadter 0259, Fig. 2P]), and
wherein the display of one or more sets of criteria includes: displaying existing criteria, displaying only visible criteria (i.e. menu items that are excluded from display due to a limiting command are provided in the advanced context menu 270 [Wohlstadter 0304]), displaying all criteria, and/or displaying only hidden criteria.”
Claim 24: Wohlstadter teaches “A method executed by at least one processor for navigating a path of hierarchical menu levels adapted for output to a graphical user interface (GUI) (i.e. a method executed by at least one processor for navigating a path of hierarchical menu levels adapted for output to a graphical user interface (GUI) [Wohlstadter 0015]), the method comprising:
providing, by at least one processor, a first command for a first menu of one or more user- selectable menu items to be displayed on a first portion of a user interface (UI) display (i.e. a first command for a first menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on a first portion of a user interface (UI) display [Wohlstadter 0812, see also Fig. 2A-2C, and corresponding paragraphs 0217-0242]); and
providing, by the at least one processor, a second command for a second menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on the first portion of the UI display in response to a user's selection (i.e. a second command for a second menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on the first portion of the UI display in response to a user's selection [Wohlstadter 0812, see also Fig. 2A-2C, and corresponding paragraphs 0217-0242]),
wherein at least one of user-selectable menu items of the first menu is adapted to be displayed on a second portion of the UI display and comprise one or more of a past-selected menu item and a past-unselected menu item of the hierarchical menu levels and is adapted to be concurrently viewed with the second menu in the first portion (i.e. wherein the first menu is adapted to be displayed on a second portion of the UI display and comprises one or more of a past-selected menu item and a past-unselected menu item of the hierarchical menu levels and is adapted to be concurrently viewed with the second menu in the first portion [Wohlstadter 0812, see also Fig. 2A-2C, and corresponding paragraphs 0217-0242]); and
further wherein the one or more user-selectable menu items of the second menu comprise menu items (i.e. a default menu suitable for selecting options for experimental design or experimental analysis… default menu may be a first menu, second menu, third menu, and/or any other menu from a level in a hierarchical menu tree [Wohlstadter 0252] note: from 0252, the menu levels disclosed can be on any menu level in the hierarchical menu tree, including the second menu) that provide at least one option to create, organize, and/or aggregate data… from one or more… experiments (i.e. In this example assay method, the options for the workflows for the system include: Create a new run 508 [Wohlstadter 0407, Fig. 5, 7]… Assay Method—The method by which an assay is performed, including but not limited to: 1. Instrument protocol that should be executed and the parameters for execution of that protocol [Wohlstadter 0377] note: an “assay” is an experiment. Fig. 5, 7 shows selection of assay methods in multiple hierarchal menus. Creating a new assay/experiment run is also creating data related to experiments. Note2: this is interpreted as intended use).”
Wohlstadter is/are silent regarding the data “resulting” from one or more “previously conducted” experiments.
Another embodiment of Wohlstadter teaches “further wherein the one or more user-selectable menu items of the second menu comprise menu items that provide at least one option to create, organize, and/or aggregate data resulting from one or more previously conducted experiments (i.e. a default menu suitable for selecting options for… experimental analysis … the default menu may be a first menu, second menu, third menu, and/or any other menu from a level in a hierarchical menu tree [Wohlstadter 0252]… the experimental analysis module may permit other team members to access results of experiments after they have been conducted [Wohlstadter 0310] note: 0252 teaches a hierarchical menu for options criteria for experimental analysis. 0310 teaches that the experimental analysis is upon experiment results, or data from completed experiments).”
While original Wohlstadter discloses menus to create, organize, and/or aggregate data for one or more experiment criteria, original Wohlstadter is silent regarding the same menus for experiment results. However, the another embodiment of Wohlstadter discloses menu options to modify experiment results.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to modify the menu to include its concepts upon experiment result data.
One would be motivated to combine Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the hierarchal menu and experimental options menu, to configure more features, which increases the software’s functionality, which increases feature set users can perform, which increases user flexibility and user retention.
Claim 31: Wohlstadter teaches “A method executed by at least one processor for navigating a path of hierarchical menu levels adapted for output to a graphical user interface (GUI) (i.e. a method executed by at least one processor for navigating a path of hierarchical menu levels adapted for output to a graphical user interface (GUI) [Wohlstadter 0015]), the method comprising:
providing, by at least one processor, a first command for a first menu of one or more user- selectable menu items to be displayed on a first portion of a user interface (UI) display (i.e. a first command for a first menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on a first portion of a user interface (UI) display [Wohlstadter 0812, see also Fig. 2A-2C, and corresponding paragraphs 0217-0242]); and
providing, by the at least one processor, a second command for a second menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on the first portion of the UI display in response to a user's selection (i.e. a second command for a second menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on the first portion of the UI display in response to a user's selection [Wohlstadter 0812, see also Fig. 2A-2C, and corresponding paragraphs 0217-0242]),
wherein at least one of user-selectable menu items of the first menu is adapted to be displayed on a second portion of the UI display and comprise one or more of a past-selected menu item and a past-unselected menu item of the hierarchical menu levels and is adapted to be concurrently viewed with the second menu in the first portion (i.e. wherein the first menu is adapted to be displayed on a second portion of the UI display and comprises one or more of a past-selected menu item and a past-unselected menu item of the hierarchical menu levels and is adapted to be concurrently viewed with the second menu in the first portion [Wohlstadter 0812, see also Fig. 2A-2C, and corresponding paragraphs 0217-0242]); and
further wherein the one or more user-selectable menu items of the second menu comprise menu items (i.e. a default menu suitable for selecting options for experimental design or experimental analysis… default menu may be a first menu, second menu, third menu, and/or any other menu from a level in a hierarchical menu tree [Wohlstadter 0252] note: from 0252, the menu levels disclosed can be on any menu level in the hierarchical menu tree, including the second menu) provide at least one option to review and/or analyze data resulting from one or more previously conducted experiments (i.e. FIG. 16 is a flow diagram illustrating a workflow of a user interface displayed for execute/review option in one embodiment. At the review screen, the system presents the results of the run [Wohlstadter 0421, Fig. 16] note: this is interpreted as intended use).”
This embodiment in Wohlstadter teaches a hierarchal menu for configuring experiments (see [0812], above). Wohlstadter does not explicitly teach a hierarchal menu for reviewing data from experiment results. In another embodiment of Wohlstadter, Wohlstadter teaches a menu for reviewing data for experimental analysis/results:
Another embodiment in Wohlstadter teaches “further wherein the one or more user-selectable menu items of the second menu comprise menu items provide at least one option to review and/or analyze data resulting from one or more previously conducted experiments (i.e. a default menu suitable for selecting options for… experimental analysis … the default menu may be a first menu, second menu, third menu, and/or any other menu from a level in a hierarchical menu tree [Wohlstadter 0252]… the experimental analysis module may permit other team members to access results of experiments after they have been conducted [Wohlstadter 0310] note: 0252 teaches a hierarchical menu for options criteria for experimental analysis. 0310 teaches that the experimental analysis is upon experiment results, or data from completed experiments).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hierarchal menu of Wohlstadter to include a hierarchal menu with items to display experiment results as disclosed by another embodiment of Wohlstadter.
One would be motivated to combine Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the hierarchal menu and experimental results menu, in order to reduce the number of menus displayed, reduce UI clutter, and better organize options, which results in a more clear UI, which reduces confusion/distractions to the user, which increases user productivity.
Claim 38: Wohlstadter teaches “A method executed by at least one processor for navigating a path of hierarchical menu levels adapted for output to a graphical user interface (GUI) (i.e. a method executed by at least one processor for navigating a path of hierarchical menu levels adapted for output to a graphical user interface (GUI) [Wohlstadter 0015]), the method comprising:
providing, by at least one processor, a first command for a first menu of one or more user- selectable menu items to be displayed on a first portion of a user interface (UI) display (i.e. a first command for a first menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on a first portion of a user interface (UI) display [Wohlstadter 0812, see also Fig. 2A-2C, and corresponding paragraphs 0217-0242]); and
providing, by the at least one processor, a second command for a second menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on the first portion of the UI display in response to a user's selection (i.e. a second command for a second menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on the first portion of the UI display in response to a user's selection [Wohlstadter 0812, see also Fig. 2A-2C, and corresponding paragraphs 0217-0242]),
wherein at least one of user-selectable menu items of the first menu is adapted to be displayed on a second portion of the UI display and comprise one or more of a past-selected menu item and a past-unselected menu item of the hierarchical menu levels and is adapted to be concurrently viewed with the second menu in the first portion (i.e. wherein the first menu is adapted to be displayed on a second portion of the UI display and comprises one or more of a past-selected menu item and a past-unselected menu item of the hierarchical menu levels and is adapted to be concurrently viewed with the second menu in the first portion [Wohlstadter 0812, see also Fig. 2A-2C, and corresponding paragraphs 0217-0242]); and
further wherein the one or more user-selectable menu items of the second menu comprise menu items (i.e. a default menu suitable for selecting options for experimental design or experimental analysis… default menu may be a first menu, second menu, third menu, and/or any other menu from a level in a hierarchical menu tree [Wohlstadter 0252] note: from 0252, the menu levels disclosed can be on any menu level in the hierarchical menu tree, including the second menu) provide at least one option to manipulate data resulting from one or more previously conducted experiments (i.e. In response to the export command 391911, the requested file containing audit information 391917 can be exported to a user… providing users with the ability to customize the data format and/or utilize one or more applications of their choice to access, modify, and delete those data [Wohlstadter 0503, Fig. 39C] note: the export option is provided for the purpose of manipulating experiment data. Note2: this is interpreted as intended use).”
This embodiment in Wohlstadter teaches a hierarchal menu for configuring experiments (see [0812], above) and the ability to display and manipulate experiment results (see [0503], above). Wohlstadter does not explicitly teach a hierarchal menu for manipulating data from experiment results. In another embodiment of Wohlstadter, Wohlstadter teaches a menu for manipulating data for experimental analysis/results:
Another embodiment of Wohlstadter teaches “further wherein the one or more user-selectable menu items of the second menu comprise menu items provide at least one option to manipulate data resulting from one or more previously conducted experiments (i.e. a default menu suitable for selecting options for… experimental analysis … the default menu may be a first menu, second menu, third menu, and/or any other menu from a level in a hierarchical menu tree [Wohlstadter 0252]… the experimental analysis module may permit other team members to access results of experiments after they have been conducted [Wohlstadter 0310] note: 0252 teaches a hierarchical menu for options criteria for experimental analysis. 0310 teaches that the experimental analysis is upon experiment results, or data from completed experiments).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hierarchal menu of Wohlstadter to include a hierarchal menu with items to display and manipulate experiment results as disclosed by another embodiment of Wohlstadter.
One would be motivated to combine Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the hierarchal menu and experimental options menu, in order to reduce the number of menus displayed, reduce UI clutter, and better organize options, which results in a more clear UI, which reduces confusion/distractions to the user, which increases user productivity.
Claim 39: Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter teach(es) all the limitations of claim 38, above. Wohlstadter teaches “wherein the data manipulation includes establishing, recalling, refining, modifying, and/or editing one or more criteria as applied to data… from the one or more… experiments (i.e. FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating a user interface workflow for selecting an assay method in one embodiment [Wohlstadter 0027, Fig. 7]… Assay Method—The method by which an assay is performed, including but not limited to: 1. Instrument protocol that should be executed and the parameters for execution of that protocol [Wohlstadter 0377] note: an “assay” is an experiment. Fig. 7 shows selection of assay methods in multiple hierarchal menus. Assay methods include criterions for which experiments are to be performed, such as protocols and parameters, which affect experiment data).”
Another embodiment of Wohlstadter teaches “wherein the data manipulation includes establishing, recalling, refining, modifying, and/or editing one or more criteria as applied to data resulting from the one or more previously conducted experiments (i.e. a default menu suitable for selecting options for… experimental analysis … the default menu may be a first menu, second menu, third menu, and/or any other menu from a level in a hierarchical menu tree [Wohlstadter 0252]… the experimental analysis module may permit other team members to access results of experiments after they have been conducted [Wohlstadter 0310] note: the another embodiment of Wohlstadter teaches options, or modification, of the results).”
While original Wohlstadter discloses menus for establishing, recalling, refining, modifying, and/or editing one or more experiment criteria, original Wohlstadter is silent regarding the same menus for experiment results. However, the another embodiment of Wohlstadter discloses menu options to modify experiment results.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to modify the menu to include its concepts upon experiment result data.
One would be motivated to combine Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to configure more features, which increases the software’s functionality, which increases feature set users can perform, which increases user flexibility and user retention.
Claim 40: Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter teach(es) all the limitations of claim 38, above. Wohlstadter teaches “wherein the data manipulation includes editing, reviewing, processing, and/or combining of the data resulting from the one or more previously conducted experiments (i.e. FIG. 16 is a flow diagram illustrating a workflow of a user interface displayed for execute/review option in one embodiment. At the review screen, the system presents the results of the run [Wohlstadter 0421, Fig. 16]).”
Claim 41: Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter teach(es) all the limitations of claim 38, above. Wohlstadter teaches “wherein the data manipulation includes highlighting and/or focusing particular data of interest … from the one or more… experiments (i.e. the fourth menu is a subsequent menu of Heat Map and comprises one or more of a spot layout [Wohlstadter 0883]… in response to a highlighting of a spot, the graph populates with data for the selected spot over the entire plate, or wherein in response to a highlighting of a spot and a well, the graph populates with data for the highlighted spot in the highlighted well [Wohlstadter 0884]).”
Another embodiment of Wohlstadter teaches “wherein the data manipulation includes highlighting and/or focusing particular data of interest resulting from the one or more previously conducted experiments (i.e. a default menu suitable for selecting options for… experimental analysis … the default menu may be a first menu, second menu, third menu, and/or any other menu from a level in a hierarchical menu tree [Wohlstadter 0252]… the experimental analysis module may permit other team members to access results of experiments after they have been conducted [Wohlstadter 0310] note: the another embodiment of Wohlstadter teaches options, or modification, of the results).”
While original Wohlstadter discloses menus for highlighting and/or focusing one or more experiment criteria, original Wohlstadter is silent regarding the same menus for experiment results. However, the another embodiment of Wohlstadter discloses menu options to modify experiment results.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to modify the menu to include its concepts upon experiment result data.
One would be motivated to combine Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to configure more features, which increases the software’s functionality, which increases feature set users can perform, which increases user flexibility and user retention.
Claim 42: Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter teach(es) all the limitations of claim 38, above. Wohlstadter teaches “wherein the one or more previously conducted experiments include an assay-based experiment (i.e. embodiments described herein in conjunction with the figures relate to collect and prepare modules for performing assay-based experiments [Wohlstadter 0584]).”
Claim 43: Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter teach(es) all the limitations of claim 38, above. Wohlstadter teaches “wherein the assay-based experiment is an electrochemiluminescence (ECL)-based assay (i.e. one or more experiments can include the performance of ECL-based assays [Wohlstadter 0584]).”
Claim 44: Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter teach(es) all the limitations of claim 41, above. Wohlstadter teaches “wherein the data is obtained from an ECL-based immunoassay (i.e. Methods for measuring the amount of an analyte also include techniques that measure analytes through the detection of labels which may be attached directly or indirectly (e.g., through the use of labeled binding partners of an analyte) to an analyte. Suitable labels include labels that can be directly visualized (e.g., particles that may be seen visually and labels that generate a measurable signal such as… electrochemiluminescence [ECL]. Labels that may be used also include enzymes or other chemically reactive species that have a chemical activity that leads to a measurable signal such as light scattering, absorbance, fluorescence, etc. The use of enzymes as labels has been well established in in Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSorbent Assays, also called ELISAs, Enzyme ImmunoAssays [Wohlstadter 0349]).”
Claim 45: Wohlstadter teaches “A method executed by one or more processors for navigating a path of hierarchical menu levels adapted for output to a graphical user interface (GUI) (i.e. a method executed by at least one processor for navigating a path of hierarchical menu levels adapted for output to a graphical user interface (GUI) [Wohlstadter 0015]), the method comprising:
providing, by one or more processors, a first command for a first menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on a first portion of a user interface (UI) display (i.e. a first command for a first menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on a first portion of a user interface (UI) display [Wohlstadter 0812, see also Fig. 2A-2C, and corresponding paragraphs 0217-0242]); and
providing, by the one or more processors, a second command for a second menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on the first portion of the UI display in response to a user's selection (i.e. a second command for a second menu of one or more user-selectable menu items to be displayed on the first portion of the UI display in response to a user's selection [Wohlstadter 0812, see also Fig. 2A-2C, and corresponding paragraphs 0217-0242]),
wherein at least one of user-selectable menu items of the first menu is adapted to be displayed on a second portion of the UI display and comprise one or more of a past- selected menu item and a past-unselected menu item of the hierarchical menu levels and is adapted to be concurrently viewed with the second menu in the first portion (i.e. wherein the first menu is adapted to be displayed on a second portion of the UI display and comprises one or more of a past-selected menu item and a past-unselected menu item of the hierarchical menu levels and is adapted to be concurrently viewed with the second menu in the first portion [Wohlstadter 0812, see also Fig. 2A-2C, and corresponding paragraphs 0217-0242]); and
further wherein the one or more user-selectable menu items of the second menu (i.e. a default menu suitable for selecting options for experimental design or experimental analysis… default menu may be a first menu, second menu, third menu, and/or any other menu from a level in a hierarchical menu tree [Wohlstadter 0252] note: from 0252, the menu levels disclosed can be on any menu level in the hierarchical menu tree, including the second menu) comprise data… from one or more experiments (i.e. FIG. 16 is a flow diagram illustrating a workflow of a user interface displayed for execute/review option in one embodiment. At the review screen, the system presents the results of the run [Wohlstadter 0421, Fig. 16] note: this is interpreted as intended use) and at least one corresponding indicator (i.e. the second portion further comprises an indicator bar, further wherein one or more of the past-selected menu items are adapted to be visually aligned with the indicator bar to designate which menu items were previously selected throughout a user's traversal of the menu hierarchy [Wohlstadter 0895]).”
This embodiment in Wohlstadter teaches a hierarchal menu for configuring experiments (see [0812], above). Wohlstadter does not explicitly teach a hierarchal menu for data “resulting” from one or more experiments “previously conducted. In another embodiment of Wohlstadter, Wohlstadter teaches a menu for configuring options criteria for experimental results:
Another embodiment of Wohlstadter teaches “further wherein the one or more user-selectable menu items of the second menu comprise data resulting from one or more experiments previously conducted (i.e. a default menu suitable for selecting options for… experimental analysis … the default menu may be a first menu, second menu, third menu, and/or any other menu from a level in a hierarchical menu tree [Wohlstadter 0252]… the experimental analysis module may permit other team members to access results of experiments after they have been conducted [Wohlstadter 0310] note: 0252 teaches a hierarchical menu for options criteria for experimental analysis. 0310 teaches that the experimental analysis is upon experiment results, or data from completed experiments).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hierarchal menu of Wohlstadter to include a hierarchal menu to display options to configure or modify experiment results as disclosed by another embodiment of Wohlstadter.
One would be motivated to combine Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the hierarchal menu and experimental options menu, in order to reduce the number of menus displayed, reduce UI clutter, and better organize options, which results in a more clear UI, which reduces confusion/distractions to the user, which increases user productivity.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wohlstadter, in view of another embodiment in Wohlstadter, in view of Woo et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20070010951 A1 (hereinafter “Woo”).
Claim 11: Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter teach(es) all the limitations of claim 9, above. Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter is/are silent regarding “wherein the options to limit, exclude, and/or flag certain data includes filtering the data by one or more of a less-than value, an equal-to value, a greater-than value, within a range of values, and/or within one or more reference values.”
Woo teaches “wherein the options to limit, exclude, and/or flag certain data includes filtering the data by one or more of a less-than value, an equal-to value, a greater-than value, within a range of values, and/or within one or more reference values (i.e. QC flag-filter conditions 322 can be set individually and customized to the particular experiment, assay and quality control goals. Checking the "Flag Condition" box identifies the tests that the QC metrics will perform using the specified condition. For example, "Large Mean Square" (LME) has the "Flag Condition" checked and a ">" (greater than) condition with a value of 2000. Accordingly, this would mean that finding a LME value for a particular well greater than 2000 should result in filtering or excluding the data value [Woo 0053]).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Wohlstadter and another embodiment of Wohlstadter to include the ability to filter data as disclosed by Woo.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to remove flawed data, which increases accuracy of results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu (US 20190339820 A1) listed on 892 is related to displaying a subset of menu items.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL SHEN whose telephone number is (469)295-9169 and email address is samuel.shen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00 am - 5:00 pm CT.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034. 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.
/S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights