DETAILED ACTION This non-final Office action is responsive to the application filed September 19 th , 2023. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on FILLIN "Enter date IDS was filed" \* MERGEFORMAT 1/12/24 and 3/26/24 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter; When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Step 1: Independent claims 1 (method), 8 ( non-transitory computer-readable medium ), and 1 5 ( system ) and dependent claims 2- 7 , 9-14 , and 1 6 -20, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e. process), claim 8 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. manufacture ), and claim 1 5 is directed to a system (i.e. machine ). Step 2A Prong 1: T he independent claims recite generating , by an automated lab management system, an interface including a representation of lab systems within a lab, the lab associated with a schedule of tasks each associated with a pre-scheduled assay scheduled for performance within the lab ; receiving, by the automated lab management system from a user via the interface, a workflow path through the lab for an assay, the workflow path associated with an ordered subset of the lab systems used in the performance of the assay; converting , the automated lab management system, the received workflow into a set of lab system tasks required to perform the assay, each of the subset of lab systems associated with a subset of lab system tasks ; and modifying , by the automated lab management system, the schedule of tasks to include the set of lab system tasks by optimizing a combination of the set of lab system tasks and the tasks associated with pre-scheduled assays ( Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process ), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea]. The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are generating a representation of a lab system including a schedule of tasks associated with a pre-scheduled assay; converting the received workflow into a set of lab system tasks required to perform the assay; and modifying the schedule of tasks to include the set of lab system tasks by optimizing a combination of the set of lab systems tasks and the tasks associated with pre-scheduled assays, which is managing personal behavior, relationships, and interactions. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are modifying the schedule of tasks within a lab, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity . The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are generating a representation of a lab system including a schedule of tasks associated with a pre-scheduled assay; converting the received workflow into a set of lab system tasks required to perform the assay; and modifying the schedule of tasks to include the set of lab system tasks by optimizing a combination of the set of lab systems tasks and the tasks associated with pre-scheduled assays, which are functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgment, and evaluation . The Applicant’s claimed limitations are modifying the schedule of tasks within a lab, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process . In addition, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining the lab system tasks; identifying scheduling conflicts; generating an alert to the user; providing a recommendation for alternative workflow paths; providing recommendations to modify the workflow ; the lab systems; and the optimization of the combination of the set of lab system tasks and the tasks associated with the pre-scheduled assays . These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include managing personal behavior as well as mental processes . Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas. Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “receiving, by the automated lab management system from a user via the interface, a workflow path through the lab for an assay, the workflow path associated with an ordered subset of the lab systems used in the performance of the assay” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “ an automated lab management system; an interface; A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor ; An automated lab management system comprising: an interface ; a processor ” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). In addition, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 4-5, 11-12, and 17-18 additionally recite “ providing to the user a recommendation for alternative workflow paths to resolve the identified conflicts ” and “ providing, by the automated lab management system, recommendations to modify the received workflow path based on criteria including an optimal utilization of lab equipment, a minimization of processing times, and an optimization of lab system output ” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “ automated lab management system ” and “processor” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). The claimed “ an automated lab management system; an interface; A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor ; An automated lab management system comprising: an interface ; a processor ” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019). Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, method claims 1-7 ; non-transitory computer-readable medium claims 8-14; and System claims 15-20 recite “ an automated lab management system; an interface; A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor ; An automated lab management system comprising: an interface ; a processor ” ; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0101-0102 and Figures 1 & 3 . The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “receiving, by the automated lab management system from a user via the interface, a workflow path through the lab for an assay, the workflow path associated with an ordered subset of the lab systems used in the performance of the assay” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In addition, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 4-5, 11-12, and 17-18 additionally recite “ providing to the user a recommendation for alternative workflow paths to resolve the identified conflicts ” and “ providing, by the automated lab management system, recommendations to modify the received workflow path based on criteria including an optimal utilization of lab equipment, a minimization of processing times, and an optimization of lab system output ” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “ automated lab management system ” and “processor” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. 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 ( 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 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. Claim(s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1, 6, 8, 13, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Wohlstadter (U.S 2021/0 2 00393 A1) . Claims 1, 8, and 15 Regarding Claim 1, Wohlstadter discloses the following: A method comprising: generating, by an automated lab management system, an interface including a representation of lab systems within a lab, the lab associated with a schedule of tasks scheduled for performance within the lab [see at least Paragraph 0142 for reference to the MUI integrating the physical world actions of both human operators and automated machines being applied to laboratory workflows; Paragraph 0 0227 for reference to the second portion of the user interface visualizes a representation of a path of past decisions taken and other decisions (other paths) not taken ; Paragraph 0230 for reference to the first and second portion of the MUI display; Paragraph 0306 for reference to the MUI of the laboratory information management system (LIMS) providing various modules to a user and the systems provided herein permit the integration of workflows between multiple team members through the use of a single and consistent interface ; Paragraph 0334 for reference to the MUI display is able to display or provide a visual representation of a path of a workflow and/or menu items for the assay ; Figure 6-7 and related text regarding a workflow of a define assay method ] receiving, by the automated lab management system from a user via the interface, a workflow path, the workflow path associated with an ordered subset of the lab systems [see at least Paragraph 00 18 for reference to a system for navigating a path of hierarchical menu levels adapted for output to a graphical user interface (GUI) is provided ; Paragraph 0132 for reference to s election or highlighting a menu item may also occur responsive to user manipulation of various visual components to cause the menu item to move to a position where it is to be highlighted or selected ; Paragraph 0140 for reference to after designing a workflow or process, an execution menu may provide a walkthrough or tutorial coinciding with the workflow, offering text based, audio based, video based, and image based tutorial steps to walk the user through each step of the designed workflow or process ; Paragraph 0158 for reference to r eceipt of such a signal causes the appropriate manager of the methodical user interface control system to provide a command in response to thereby cause one or more actions, including MUI navigation, menu display, etc., as discussed herein ] converting, the automated lab management system, the received workflow into a set of lab system tasks, each of the subset of lab systems associated with a subset of lab system tasks [see at least Paragraph 0132 for reference to m anipulation of visual components and/or direct choosing may be implemented through the use of any suitable user input device, including touchscreens, mice, keyboards, arrow keys, gaze detection system, motion detection systems, gesture detection systems, etc. ; Paragraph 0155 for reference to managers as discussed herein may be implemented to manage a MUI in various embodiments to complete various tasks that require process workflows ; Paragraph 0258 for reference to the advanced context menu may include three portions highlighting different tasks to be performed; Paragraph 0306 for reference to the experimental procedure module may permit team members responsible for running the experiments to access the already designed experiments and implement them, through interaction between the MUI, the operator, and external systems ; Paragraph 0334 for reference to the MUI display is able to display or provide a visual representation of a path of a workflow and/or menu items for the assay ; Paragraph 0409 for reference to the system walking the user through accomplishing tasks and breaking the major logical steps into Goals ] modifying, by the automated lab management system, the schedule of tasks to include the set of lab system tasks by optimizing a combination of the set of lab system tasks [see at least Paragraph 0416 for reference to the system categorizes tasks the user may do into major workflows and advanced workflows wherein major workflows are those the user will routinely perform and are optimized for ease of execution ; Paragraph 0493 for reference to the audit information providing a trail of information that summarizes the tasks, equipment, and/or instruments associated with one or more users' experiences while logged into their accounts ; Paragraph 0557 for reference to the Operation module providing the interface for executing experiments on an instrument to collect data for samples using assay methods defined in an experiment ; Figure 17 and related text regarding the workflow of a user interface displayed for execute/review options ] Regarding claims 8 and 15 , the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 8 , Wohlstadter teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor [Paragraph 0634-0647 ]. Regarding claim 1 5 , Wohlstadter teaches an automated lab management system comprising an interface and a processor [Paragraph 00 18 and Figures 18-19 ]. Therefore, claims 8 and 15 are rejected as being unpatentable in view of Wohlstadter . Claims 6, 13, and 19 R egarding Claim 6, Wohlstadter discloses the following: wherein the lab systems comprise one or more members selected from the group consisting of: centrifuges, spectrometers, thermocyclers, liquid handling systems, plate readers, incubators, imaging systems, water baths, shakers, and mixers [see at least Paragraph 0 346 for reference to automated systems on which the methods can be carried out including liquid handling subsystem(s), e.g., sample handling and reagent handling, e.g., robotic pipetting head, syringe, stirring apparatus, ultrasonic mixing apparatus, magnetic mixing apparatus; sample, reagent, and consumable storing and handling subsystem(s), e.g., robotic manipulator, tube or lid or foil piercing apparatus, lid removing apparatus, conveying apparatus such as linear and circular conveyors and robotic manipulators, tube racks, plate carriers, trough carriers, pipet tip carriers, plate shakers; centrifuges, assay reaction subsystem(s), e.g., fluid-based and consumable-based (such as tube and multi well plate); container and consumable washing subsystem(s), e.g., plate washing apparatus; magnetic separator or magnetic particle concentrator subsystem(s), e.g., flow cell, tube, and plate types; cell and particle detection, classification and separation subsystem(s), e.g., flow cytometers and Coulter counters; detection subsystem(s) such as colorimetric, nephelometric, fluorescence, and ECL detectors ] Regarding claims 13 and 19 , the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 6 . 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. Claim (s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Wohlstadter (U.S 2021/0 2 00393 A1) in view of Starink (U.S 2008/0177612 A1) . Claims 2, 9, and 16 While Wohlstadter discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose wherein the lab system tasks include at least one task related to a movement of materials between lab systems within the lab. R egarding Claim 2, Starink discloses the following: wherein the lab system tasks include at least one task related to a movement of materials between lab systems within the lab [see at least Paragraph 0135 for reference to process activities being activities created to represent a process element within the workflow wherein the activities have a UI and interact with an operator to record process step related information to be submitted for processing by the system; Paragraph 0137 for reference to the system recording information associated with activities performed including how much material was moved] Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laboratory interface management system of Wohlstadter to track the movement of materials in the laboratory as seen in Starink . Doing so allows the user to view how samples proceed through each step of the experiment, so a structured flow is supported if desired , as stated by Starink (Paragraph 0044). Regarding claims 9 and 16 , the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 2. Claim (s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 5, 7, 12, 14, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Wohlstadter (U.S 2021/0 2 00393 A1) in view of Patel (U.S 2020/0166528 A1) . Claims 5, 12, and 18 While Wohlstadter disclose s the limitations above, it does not disclose providing, by the automated lab management system, recommendations to modify the received workflow path based on criteria including an optimal utilization of lab equipment, a minimization of processing times, and an optimization of lab system output. Regarding Claim 5, Patel discloses the following: providing, by the automated lab management system, recommendations to modify the received workflow path based on criteria including an optimal utilization of lab equipment, a minimization of processing times, and an optimization of lab system output [see at least Paragraph 0269 for reference to the ways that a revised assay and a baseline assay can differ; Paragraph 0364 for reference to goals of improvement including shortening the time required to perform an assay the complexity of the assay, reducing the cost of the assay, enhancing the ease of co - ordinating the performance of the assay with other assays performed on the same sample or with the same equipment, insuring that the assay uses detection methods compatible with other assays to be per formed on the sample or with the same equipment, and other goals; Figure 1 and related text regarding the method of altering a baseline assay; Figure 2 and related text regarding the methods disclosed herein, in which a step of a baseline assay is altered thereby providing a revised assay, and the results of the performance of the revised assay are compared to the results of the performance of the baseline assay] Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laboratory interface management system of Wohlstadter to include the recommendation capability of Patel. Doing so would provide a focused, directed set of actions to be taken in order to improve an assay, thereby providing limited, and therefore practical, strategies for improving and adapting assays, as stated by Patel (Paragraph 0056). Regarding claims 12 and 18 , the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 5 . Claims 7, 14, and 20 While Wohlstadter disclose s the limitations above, it does not disclose wherein the automated lab management system optimizes the combination of the set of lab system tasks and the tasks associated with the pre-scheduled assays based on lab system availability and capacity, assay processing times, and resource allocations within the lab. Regarding Claim 7, Patel discloses the following: wherein the automated lab management system optimizes the combination of the set of lab system tasks and the tasks associated with the pre-scheduled assays based on lab system availability and capacity, assay processing times, and resource allocations within the lab [see at least Paragraph 0363 for reference to improvements including altering (e.g., improving) the timing of steps of, or the total time required to perform a baseline assay; Paragraph 0364 for assay improvements including reducing the complexity of the assay and enhancing the ease of coordinating the performance of the assay with other assays performed on the same sample or with the same equipment] Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laboratory interface management system of Wohlstadter to include the recommendation capability of Patel. Doing so would provide a focused, directed set of actions to be taken in order to improve an assay, thereby providing limited, and therefore practical, strategies for improving and adapting assays, as stated by Patel (Paragraph 0056). Regarding claims 14 and 20 , the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 7 . Claim (s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 3-4, 10-11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Wohlstadter (U.S 2021/0 2 00393 A1) in view of Triener (U.S 2011/0220775 A1) . Claims 3 and 10 While Wohlstadter disclose s the limitations above, it do es not disclose identifying, by the automated lab management system, any scheduling conflicts between the set of lab system tasks and the tasks associated with pre-scheduled assays; and generating, by the automated lab management system, an alert to the user via the interface, allowing the user to modify the workflow path to resolve the identified conflicts. Regarding Claim 3, Triener discloses the following: identifying, by the automated lab management system, any scheduling conflicts between the set of lab system tasks and the tasks associated with pre-scheduled assays [see at least Paragraph 0118 for reference to the assay system can run on a schedule that pauses lower priority samples when a schedule conflict arises; Paragraph 0252 for reference to real-time progress indicators providing at a glance status reports and remote monitoring allows progress checks on multiple systems from any browser or internet-enabled phone] generating, by the automated lab management system, an alert to the user via the interface, allowing the user to modify the workflow path to resolve the identified conflicts [see at least Paragraph 0118 for reference to the assay system offering options to the user through the user interface for modifying the determined protocol; Paragraph 0252 for reference to real-time progress indicators providing at a glance status reports and remote monitoring allows progress checks on multiple systems from any browser or internet-enabled phone] Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laboratory interface management system of Wohlstadter to include conflict identification and alerting of Triener . Doing so would provide optical components that facilitate performing more than one assay protocol, as stated by Triener (Paragraph 0008). Regarding claim 10 , the claim recite s limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 3 . Claims 4 and 11 While the combination of Wohlstadter and Triener disclose the limitations above, Wohlstadter do es not disclose providing to the user a recommendation for alternative workflow paths to resolve the identified conflicts. Regarding Claim 4, Triener discloses the following: providing to the user a recommendation for alternative workflow paths to resolve the identified conflicts [see at least Paragraph 0118 for reference to the assay system offering options to the user through the user interface for modifying the determined protocol; Paragraph 0235 for reference to protocol module can be configured to operate according to priority statuses of the samples whereby lower priority samples are paused when a schedule conflict arises and resumed upon resolving the schedule conflict] Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laboratory interface management system of Wohlstadter to include recommendation to resolve conflicts of Triener . Doing so would provide optical components that facilitate performing more than one assay protocol, as stated by Triener (Paragraph 0008). Regarding claim 11 , the claim recite s limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 4 . Claim 17 While Wohlstadter disclose s the limitations above, it do es not disclose identifying, by the automated lab management system, any scheduling conflicts between the set of lab system tasks and the tasks associated with pre-scheduled assays; generating, by the automated lab management system, an alert to the user via the interface, allowing the user to modify the workflow path to resolve the identified conflicts; and provide to the user a recommendation for alternative workflow paths to resolve the identified conflicts. Regarding Claim 17, Triener discloses the following: identify, by the automated lab management system, any scheduling conflicts between the set of lab system tasks and the tasks associated with pre-scheduled assays [see at least Paragraph 0118 for reference to the assay system can run on a schedule that pauses lower priority samples when a schedule conflict arises; Paragraph 0252 for reference to real-time progress indicators providing at a glance status reports and remote monitoring allows progress checks on multiple systems from any browser or internet-enabled phone] generate, an alert to the user via the interface, allowing the user to modify the workflow path to resolve the identified conflicts [see at least Paragraph 0118 for reference to the assay system offering options to the user through the user interface for modifying the determined protocol; Paragraph 0252 for reference to real-time progress indicators providing at a glance status reports and remote monitoring allows progress checks on multiple systems from any browser or internet-enabled phone] provide to the user a recommendation for alternative workflow paths to resolve the identified conflicts [see at least Paragraph 0118 for reference to the assay system offering options to the user through the user interface for modifying the determined protocol; Paragraph 0235 for reference to protocol module can be configured to operate according to priority statuses of the samples whereby lower priority samples are paused when a schedule conflict arises and resumed upon resolving the schedule conflict] Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laboratory interface management system of Wohlstadter to include conflict identification, alerting, and resolution of Triener . Doing so would provide optical components that facilitate performing more than one assay protocol, as stated by Triener (Paragraph 0008). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ford, Bradley A., and Erin McElvania . "Machine learning takes laboratory automation to the next level." Journal of clinical microbiology 58.4 (2020): 10-1128. DOCUMENT ID INVENTOR(S) TITLE US 6,581,012 B1 Aryev et al. AUTOMATED LABORATORY SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE US 2024/0053329 A1 Izadi Kharazi et al. MULTIMODAL TESTING SYSTEM US 2018/0180635 A1 Lapham et al. AUTOMATIC DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY AND LABORATORY INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR HIGH THROUGHPUT Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KRISTIN ELIZABETH GAVIN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7019 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7:30-4:30 PM EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jerry O'Connor can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-6787 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /KRISTIN E GAVIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624