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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/12/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to applicant arguments filled on 08/07/2025 for application 18/586219.
Claims 1, 3, 10, 15, and 17 have been canceled.
Claims 2, 6, 11, 14, 19, and 21-22, have been amended. Claims 2, 4-9, 11-14, 16, and 21-22 are currently pending.
Detailed Action
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 2, 4-9, 11-14, 16, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 2, 4-9, 11-14, 16, and 21-22 are drawn to a method and system, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 2 and 14 recite documenting one or more instructions or questions; and associating one or more culture plate images with a deferred consultation. The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity by identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including a user interface, devices, and a processor, which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., the “processor” receives selection through no more than a statement that said processor configured to, in response to receiving a selection) such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed (e.g., the “processor” language is incidental to what it is “configured” to perform). Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims recite the additional element of displaying information; receiving a selection; and transmitting the differed consultation, which are considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
Paragraph 50, where “The culture reading system 110 includes a processor 102, a memory 104, an input 106 and a display 108. The memory 104, which can include both read-only memory (ROM) and random access memory (RAM), can be configured to provide instructions and data to the processor 102. For example, the memory 104 can store one or more modules that store data values defining instructions to configure processor 102 to perform functions of the culture reading system 110. As shown in Figure 1, the memory 104 includes a selection tool module 112 that includes instructions that configure the processor 102 to perform selection tool functions as described herein. The memory 104 can also be configured to store images of culture plates received from the incubation system 120. The memory can further include a consultation module that includes instructions that configure the processor to perform consultation functions as described herein.”
Paragraph 51 wherein The incubation system 120 can be configured to communicate with the culture reading system 110 via wired or wireless communication, cell communication, Bluetooth®, ZigBee®, LAN, WLAN, RF, IR, or any other communication method or system known in the art. For example, the incubation system 120 can be configured to transmit images of culture plates housed within the incubator 122 to the culture reading system 110.
Paragraph 44, where “The system can further provide an interface that allows a user to share one or more culture plate images or user interface display screens to one or more devices. By providing back-end processing, the system can detect, and prevent, the user from selecting colony locations that don’t meet predefined criteria. A selected colony location can be used by a user or instrumentation to perform a physical removal of a colony on the culture plate that corresponds to the selected colony location.”
Paragraph 48 wherein the incubation system 120 can be configured to communicate with the culture reading system 110 via wired or wireless communication, cell communication, Bluetooth®, ZigBee®, LAN, WLAN, RF, IR, or any other communication method or system known in the art. For example, the incubation system 120 can be configured to transmit images of culture plates housed within the incubator 122 to the culture reading system 110.
The claims recite the additional element of displaying information; receiving a selection; and transmitting the differed consultation, which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data displaying. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 4-8, 11-13, 16, and18-22 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4-9, 11-14, 16, and 21-22is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordell et al. (US 2009/0041329 A1) in view of Backhaus et al. (US 10430550 B2).
As per claim 2, Nordell teaches a system for sharing data related to a culture plate image, comprising:
a first device comprising (Fig. 1):
a user interface configured to display one or more culture plate images (Para. 9 wherein “Linking the sample identification information with the image file with an index, such that the sample identification information and the image file persist in different storage locations”).
Nordell does not explicitly teach however Backhaus teaches:
and a deferred consultation selection option to initiate a deferred consultation request ( claim 1, wherein “generate data values to provide electronic worklists associated with respective evaluators, the electronic worklists to list pending diagnostic evaluation tasks designated for performance by the respective evaluators, wherein the data values to provide the electronic worklists are communicated to computing systems of the respective evaluators; initiate a command to designate a particular evaluator of the respective evaluators to perform the diagnostic evaluation task, wherein the particular evaluator is designated based on a match of at least one qualification of the particular evaluator with at least one requirement of the diagnostic evaluation task”) ; and
Nordell further teaches:
a processor configured to, in response to receiving a selection of the deferred consultation selection option:
enable tools on the user interface of the first device for documentation of one or more instructions or questions in a text format or recorded digital format to be associated with the deferred consultation request (Para. 20 wherein “. A high resolution image of the AOI is captured and stored. The high resolution image is analyzed for sample integrity (e.g., white blood cell count, sample area, sample dimensions). The AOI can be adjusted and rescanned based on programmable parameters”);
enable tools on the user interface of the first device for selection of at least one of the one or more culture plate images to be associated with the deferred consultation request (Para. 20 and 61 wherein “ At stage 328, the reviewer enters comments or otherwise adds annotations to the image which is then stored at stage 330 as an image annotation layer appended to the image file in the image table 162.”); and
electronically transmit the deferred consultation request to a second device of one or more consultants (Para. 10 and 20 wherein “A remote user (e.g., technician) can review the image and add metadata to the image information (e.g., white blood cell counts are added to a data field). The web server manages the work flow between the stored AOI images and the available users (i.e., technicians and other reviewers). A technician can access additional information about a particular image file, as well as other topics, through the knowledge management and social network applications”).
Nordell does not explicitly teach however Backhaus teaches:
or consultant groups to be added to a worklist of pending consultations, wherein the request includes the one or more culture plate images for review by the consultant (Claim 1 wherein worklist of pending diagnostics is taught).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filling to combine the network review in clinical hematology as taught in Nordell with the pending consultation requests as taught in Backhaus. The well-known elements described are merely a combination of old elements, and in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 4, Nordell teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to associate the documentation of the one or more instructions or questions and the at least one of the one or more culture plate images with the deferred consultation request (Para. 49).
As per claim 5, Nordell teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the first device further comprises a communications module configured to transmit data to and receive data from one or more external devices or networks (Para. 49 and Fig. 2).
As per claim 6, Nordell teaches the system of claim 2, further comprising a second device, wherein the second device comprises:
a user interface configured to display the deferred consultation request (Fig. 2); and
an input configured to allow the consultant to interact with the user interface of the second device (Fig. 2) .
As per claim 7, Nordell teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the user interface of the second device is configured to display one or more culture plate annotation tools, wherein the input of the second device is configured to allow manipulation of the one or more annotation tools of the user interface of the second device to annotate at least one of the one or more culture plate images displayed on the user interface of the second device (para. 61).
As per claim 8, Nordell teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the second device further comprises a processor configured to:
process data received from the user interface of the second device (Para. 61-62);
associate one or more annotations performed using the one or more annotation tools of the user interface of the second device with the deferred consultation request (Para. 61-62 and 65); and
electronically transmit the one or more culture plate images and one or more annotations associated with the deferred consultation request to the first device (Para. 61-62 and 65).
As per claim 9, Nordell teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the user interface of the second device is configured to display an option to conclude the deferred consultation request by setting a workflow state (para. 72 wherein “At stage 515 the application returns to stage 502 to select the next image file in the image table 162; if all files in the table have been processed the image extraction process is complete at stage 516”).
As per claim 11, Nordell teaches the system of claim 10. Nordell does not explicitly teach however Backhaus teaches, wherein the deferred consultation request is accessible through the computer network, wherein the computer network is configured to store the deferred consultation request in the worklist of pending consultations of one or more consultants (claim 1). The motivation to combine references is the same seen in claim 1.
As per claim 12, Nordell teaches the system of claim 11, further comprising the second device in communication with the computer network, wherein the second device is configured to retrieve the deferred consultation request stored by the computer network in the worklist of pending consultations of one or more consultants ( Para. 7).
As per claim 13, Nordell teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the computer network is configured to transmit a notification to the second device that the deferred consultation request is available for retrieval in the worklist of pending consultations of one or more consultants (Para. 47).
Claims 14 and 16, and 18-22 recite substantially similar limitations as seen above and hence are rejected for similar rationale as noted above.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues the 101 rejection. The Applicant states that the claims are not directed towards a judicial exception and even if the claims were found to be directed to a judicial exception, the claims include elements that mount to significantly more. The claims are similar to example 2 of training material guidance where the claim recites a useful in outsource provider serving web pages offering commercial opportunities, but is directed to automatically generating and transmitting a web page in response to activation of a link using data identified with a source webpage having certain visually perceptible elements. The pending claims are similar since the claims address a challenge of sharing user generated data related to one or more culture plate images between users using different devices. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not similar to example 2 of the training material. The pending claims recite the sharing of information (worklist) between devices in a generic way. Adding tasks on a list that can be shared between users is not similar to example 2 of the guidance. The claims do not recite any of the following exceptions: “• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a); • Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2); • Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b); • Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and • Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).”
The Applicant argues that the current claims are similar to example 42 of the training material where the claims recite a combination of additional elements provide an improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input but the user. The Applicant states that the current claims are not recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, but rather a practical application of a system sharing data related to a culture plate image. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not similar to example 42 wherein the claims solve a problem of sharing data regardless of the format received. Here the claims recite sharing data between devices in a general way by adding the information to a que.
Other applicant 101 arguments simply rehash issues addressed above or in the 101 rejection.
Applicant arguments with respect to the art rejection are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. It is respectfully submitted that the Examiner has applied new passages and citations to amended claims at the present time. The Examiner notes that amended limitations were not in the previously pending claims as such, Applicant's remarks with regard to the application of all applied references to the amended limitations are addressed in the above Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAROUN P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
MAROUN P. KANAAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/MAROUN P KANAAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687