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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-8, 10-11 and 14-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites quantifying a total experimental error of a multi-step sample handling and/or analysis sequence comprising at least two steps, including quantifying respective individual experimental errors of said at least two steps, and presenting said total experimental error and/or an output value derived from said total experimental error by an output device which falls into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts; as quantifying total experimental error involves combining individual error sources using uncertainty propagation, primarily through absolute errors for addition and subtraction, or relative percentage errors for multiplication and division. The main steps are identifying systematic and random errors, calculating standard deviations, and applying partial derivatives for multi-variable functions, thereby supporting the conclusion that the identified limitations fall into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because a multi-step sample handling and/or analysis sequence merely links the abstract idea to a field of use; as neither the performance or result improves these additional elements. MPEP 2106.05(h)
Further, the output device merely reads as a tool for performing the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(a)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the sampling handling and/or analysis sequence is not improved or bettered by the abstract idea. Further, the output device merely reads as a tool employed to perform the abstract idea in a computer environment, thereby failing to amount to significantly more.
Claims 2-3 further define the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea of mathematical concepts, thereby failing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 4 further defines the additional element of the sampling handling and/or analysis sequence comprises or consists of a liquid handling and/or analysis sequence without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more; as these elements merely link the abstract idea to a field of use and are neither improved or bettered by the result of the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claim 5 further defines the additional elements of a hand-held pipette, a liquid handling robot, a scale, an air pressure sensor, a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a spectrometer, and a sample analysis device without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more; as these elements merely link the abstract idea to a field of use and are neither improved or bettered by the result of the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claim 6 further defines the output value as comprising one or more of the following groups: a parameter, an instruction and a recommendation, derived from any of said experimental errors and their combinations. These additional element amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, as they limitations attempt to cover any parameter, instruction and recommendation with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Claim 7 further defines generic computer elements acting as tools for performing the identified abstract idea; as a display of a hand-held laboratory device is neither improved or bettered by the operation or result of the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(a)
Claim 8 further defines generic computer elements acting as tools for performing the identified abstract idea; as a display of a mobile device such as a display of a mobile phone or a tablet is neither improved or bettered by the operation or result of the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(a)
Claims 10-11 further define generic computer elements acting as tools for performing the identified abstract idea; as a display displaying a chart, a graphical symbol, an alphanumeric symbol or any combination thereof or a numerical uncertainty factor is neither improved or bettered by the operation or result of the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(a) Further, what is being displayed merely reads as an instruction to apply the exception without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 14 further defines a device for performing the identified abstract idea of claim 1. The additional element limitations of means for handling and/or analyzing a sample, merely link the abstract idea to a field of use while a computing device configured to quantify said experimental errors and an output device configured to present said total experimental error and/or said output value act as generic computer tools employed to perform the identified abstract idea. These identified abstract ideas are neither improved or bettered by the abstract idea, thereby failing to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 15 further defines the additional elements of claim 14 without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
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) 1-6, 10, 11, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitra et al. (SAMPLE PREPARATION: AN ANALYTICALPERSPECTIVE).
With respect to claim 1, Mitra et al. teaches a method comprising: quantifying a total experimental error of a multi-step sample handling (as Mitra et al. teaches measuring both systematic and random errors for the purpose of quality assurance; Section 1.6, page 25 and on page 12 describes an example of a multi-step handling process that involves 19-22 samples to be tested), and - presenting an output value (via control charts, seen on page 29) derived from said total experimental error (as the control charts are disclosed to display measurements, their respective errors as influenced by both systematic and random errors, and calculated values derived from those errors) by an output device (i.e. a graphical display; Section 1.6.2, Control Charts; page 29).
With respect to claim 2, Mitra et al. teaches the method wherein said quantifying comprises measuring the experimental error (as the error is measured and then plotted to depict both the effects of systematic and random errors caused by sample preparation during analysis, page 8).
With respect to claim 3, Mitra et al. teaches the method wherein said quantifying comprises quantifying by using an empirically trained algorithm, or calculating sum (i.e. a sum of the measurements; page 7), for example a weighted sum, of individual experimental errors, or quantizing the individual experimental errors.
With respect to claim 4, Mitra et al. teaches the method wherein the sampling handling comprises a liquid handling (as Table 1.5 discloses the sampling involves liquid handling of dilutions).
With respect to claim 5, Mitra et al. teaches the method wherein an experimental error in use of one or more of the following devices in the course of said sample handling contributes to said total experimental error to be quantified and is taken into account: a handle-help pipette (as seen in Fig. 1.5 of Mitra et al.), a liquid handling robot, a scale, an air pressure sensor, a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a spectrometer, a sample analysis device.
With respect to claim 6, Mitra et al. teaches the method wherein said output value comprises one or more of the following groups: a parameter (i.e. the output value on the chart can indicate readjustments are required; page 30, first paragraph), an instruction and recommendation, derived from any of said experimental errors and their combinations.
With respect to claim 10, Mitra et al. teaches the method wherein said presenting comprises presenting one or more of the following by the output device, such as a display (i.e. a graphical display; Section 1.6.2, Control Charts; page 29): a chart (as seen in Fig. 1.11).
With respect to claim 11, Mitra et al. teaches the method wherein said presenting comprises presenting a numerical uncertainty factor by the output device, such as a display (as Mitra et al. teaches determining k factors on pages 12 in the provided example on page 14, therefore, the graphical display, once calculated, presents the factor).
With respect to claim 14, Mitra et al. teaches a device comprising means for performing the method according to claim 1, comprising: means for handling and/or analysis a sample (Mitra et al. teaches in Section 1.3.4 Other Important Parameters, which teaches autoinjectors, autosamplers, and automated control/data acquisition on page 15); a computing device configured to quantify said experimental errors (as Mitra et al. teaches using a modern-computer for analysis; page 8), and an output device configured to present said output value (as Mitra et al. teaches a graphical display; Section 1.6.2, Control Charts; page 29).
With respect to claim 15, Mitra et al. teaches the device wherein the means for handling a sample comprises a liquid handling device (Mitra et al. teaches in Section 1.3.4 Other Important Parameters, which teaches autoinjectors, autosamplers, and automated control/data acquisition on page 15), and the output device comprises a display (of the graphical display taught in Section 1.6.2).
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.
Claim(s) 7-9, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra et al. (SAMPLE PREPARATION: AN ANALYTICALPERSPECTIVE) in view of Sharpe et al (GB 2511414A).
With respect to claim 7, Mitra et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 1, but remains silent regarding the method wherein the output device comprises a display of a laboratory device used in the sampling handing and/or analysis sequence, preferably the output device comprises a display of a hand-held laboratory device.
Sharpe et al. teaches a similar method that includes the use of a display of a laboratory device (as Sharpe et al. discloses the use of a computer having a display used in the laboratory; [0064] used in analysis sequence (as the computer is disclosed as being used during laboratory analysis), preferably the output device comprises a display of a hand-held laboratory device (as Sharpe discloses the display is capable of being part of a hand-held smart phone; [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method of Mitra et al. to include the use of a mobile device displaying details of the analysis, as taught by Sharpe et al., because Sharpe et al. teaches such a modification allows for real-time monitoring of assets, thereby preventing equipment damage, environmental incidents and negative impacts; [0043].
With respect to claim 8, Mitra et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 1, but remains silent regarding the method wherein the output device comprises a display of a mobile device, such as a display of a mobile phone or a tablet, which mobile device is used in the sample handling and/or analysis.
Sharpe et al. teaches a similar method that includes the use of a display of a mobile device [0065] which the mobile device is used in an analysis (as Sharpe et al. discloses the mobile device being connected to a processor performing an analysis, therefore, insofar as what is structurally recited defined “is used”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method of Mitra et al. to include the use of a mobile device displaying details of the analysis, as taught by Sharpe et al., because Sharpe et al. teaches such a modification allows for real-time monitoring of assets, thereby preventing equipment damage, environmental incidents and negative impacts; [0043].
With respect to claim 9, Mitra et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 1, but remains silent regarding the method wherein said output value comprises a recommendation to adjust a source of an individual experimental error, such as to adjust parameters related to said source, in order to reduce accumulation of the total experimental error, or said output value comprises a recommendation to use a particular liquid handling device and/or a particular tip in a liquid handling device during execution of the current step or a forthcoming step of said sample handling and/or analysis sequence.
Sharpe et al. teaches a similar method that includes a recommendation to adjust a source of an individual experimental error, such as to adjust parameters related to said source, in order to reduce accumulation of the total experimental error (as Sharpe et al. teaches based on a determined error, a signal is sent adjusting an asset having the errors in order to better the operation of that asset, i.e. reduce the issues occurring in the asset; [00121]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method of Mitra et al. to include the recommendation to adjust the laboratory equipment based on the errors, as taught by Sharpe et al., because Sharpe et al. teaches such a modification allows for real-time monitoring of assets, thereby preventing equipment damage, environmental incidents and negative impacts; [0043].
With respect to claim 12, Mitra et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 1, but remains silent regarding the method further comprising on the basis of the quantified experimental error, automatically locking or adjusting a function of a laboratory device the use of which device contributes to said error.
Sharpe et al. teaches a similar method that includes based on quantified error, automatically locking (i.e. shutting down) or adjusting a function of a laboratory device (i.e. an adjustment of an operation parameter) the use of which device contributes to said error; [00121].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method of Mitra et al. to include the use of a mobile device displaying details of the analysis, as taught by Sharpe et al., because Sharpe et al. teaches such a modification allows for real-time monitoring of assets, thereby preventing equipment damage, environmental incidents and negative impacts; [0043].
With respect to claim 13, Mitra et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 1, but remains silent regarding the method wherein the quantified experimental error or the output value is reported to a laboratory device the use of which contributes to said error, and said output value comprises a parameter, which is a control command or a correction factor for the laboratory device to reduce said experimental error.
Sharpe et al. teaches a similar method wherein an output value (i.e. detected error; [0068) is reported to a device (128) the use of which contributes to said error (as Sharpe teaches the error is related to the asset, [0048]), and said output value comprises a parameter, which is a control command (i.e. shutting down the asset; 00121]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method of Mitra et al. to include the use of a mobile device displaying details of the analysis, as taught by Sharpe et al., because Sharpe et al. teaches such a modification allows for real-time monitoring of assets, thereby preventing equipment damage, environmental incidents and negative impacts; [0043].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Verseout (2009/0276163A1) which teaches automating research, development, and engineering experimentation processes and work and providing a system and method for automated experimentation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights