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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/16/2026 has been entered.
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
In light of the amendments, the previous 112(f), 112(a), 112(b), and 112(d) rejections have been withdrawn.
In light of the amendments, claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In light of the amendments, claims 1-5, 9, 12-13, 15, 17-18, 20-25, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
In light of the amendments, claim 26 has not been given art rejections.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 04/16/2026, the following has occurred: claims 1-3, 9, 12-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 have been amended; claims 6-8, 10-11, 14, 16, and 19 were canceled; claims 4-5 and 21-23 remain unchanged; and claims 24-28 have been added.
Claims 1-5, 9, 12-13, 15, 17-18, and 20-28 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 05/05/2023
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation:
The previous claim interpretation has been withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
35 U.S.C. 112(a), 112(b), and 112(d) Rejections:
The previous 112(a), 112(b), and 112(d) rejections have been withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Step 2A:
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea and further states that the claims include additional elements beyond the abstract idea. The reception of data however is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity and can be seen below in the updated 101 rejection section. The remote agent device is considered as part of WURC activity.
Applicant also states that the claims are integrated into a practical application using the additional elements and that there is an improvement to previous technological systems. Applicant also highlights that there is a “prior to processing” which reduces wasteful consumption of resources. Examiner however respectfully disagrees. The claims recite additional elements in an “apply it” manner. Furthermore, the improvement to performing test on bad samples in the form of assessing the samples prior to processing those samples is moreover an improvement directed towards the abstract idea of how to process samples.
Applicant further states that the claims cover a particular solution to a particular problem and points to the August 2025 memorandum. Applicant’s arguments are deemed not persuasive as the memorandum outlines that this determination is made at Step 2A, Prong Two and involves the additional elements in the claims. Examiner however would respectfully like to point out that the claims do not include sufficient additional elements in order to reflect this improvement as being one to a technical field. Further, a general field of endeavor like "assigning samples to tests" is not a technical field on the basis that the mere usage of technology to perform a task does not render it a "technical field". As a reminder, the claims almost exclusively recite that the testing is not being performed and that this abstract process is done to assign samples to tests.
Step 2B:
Applicant argues that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and points to various features as being additional elements. The complete set of additional elements can be seen below in the updated 101 rejection section. Furthermore, these additional elements either apply the abstract idea using generic computing components or add WURC activity to the claims.
Applicant further argues that there is no indication of the combination of elements being WURC activity. The reception step is however deemed as WURC activity. The other aspect of the claim which Applicant argues are deemed as part of the abstract idea. The complete rejection can be seen below in the 101 rejection section.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
Applicant argues with respect to the amended language involving the modification od a scheduling data to reassign the medical sample to a second medical test. The second medical test however could theoretically be the same test, but just needing to be rerun (as discussed in paragraph [0053] of Depraetere et al.). Accordingly, this limitation is met using the Depraetere et al. reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 26 recites that there is a reassigning of the second medical sample from the second test to the first test, but claim 25 (from which 26 depends on) already recites a modification step which includes the assignment of the sample to the first test. Claim 25 also recites that the method includes this modification step (not tied to the at least one mitigation action) whereas claim 26 recites that the swapping/reassignment of test is part of the at least one mitigation action. Additionally, is the reassigning in claim 1 the same as the one in claim 26 with respect to the first medical sample? Examiner is unsure if the assigning in the modification step of claim 25 is supposed to coincide with the reassignment in claim 26 (as well as being unsure if the reassigning of claim 1 is the same as the one in claim 26 with respect to the first medical sample and the medical sample), leading to claim 26 being unclear and indefinite. Examiner is interpreting that the elements (with respect to the first medical sample/medical sample) in claim 1 and claim 26 are the same and the elements (with respect to the second medical sample) of claim 25 and 26 are the same.
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 1-5, 9, 12-13, 15, 17-18, and 20-28 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. Claims 1-5, 9, 12-13, and 21-26 are drawn to a method, claims 15, 17, and 27 is drawn to a system, and claims 18, 20, and 28 are drawn to a media, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-5, 9, 12-13, 15, 17-18, and 20-28 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method for optimizing an assignment of a medical sample to an analytical test, prior to processing of the medical sample in an analytical laboratory using the analytical test, the method comprising:
1) accessing scheduling data indicating an initial assignment of the medical sample to a first analytical test;
2) receiving sensor data captured, during transportation of the medical sample, by one or more sensors of a remote agent device used to transport the medical sample;
3) determining sample data, associated with the medical sample, based at least in part on the sensor data captured during transportation of the medical sample;
4) determining, based on the sample data, a compliance status indicating that the medical sample is non-compliant with the first analytical test, by determining at least one of:
4a) that a sample quality metric of the medical sample, indicated by the sample data, violates an analytical test specification of the first analytical test, or
4b) that the medical sample is unprocessable using the first analytical test; and
5) performing prior to the processing of the medical sample in the analytical laboratory, at least one mitigation action in response to determining the compliance status, wherein:
5a) the at least one mitigation action comprises modifying the scheduling data to reassign the medical sample to a second analytical test.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) accessing scheduling data indicating an initial assignment of the medical sample to a first analytical test, 3) determining sample data, associated with the medical sample, based at least in part on the sensor data captured during transportation of the medical sample, 4) determining, based on the sample data, a compliance status indicating that the medical sample is non-compliant with the first analytical test, by determining at least one of: 4a) that a sample quality metric of the medical sample, indicated by the sample data, violates an analytical test specification of the first analytical test, or 4b) that the medical sample is unprocessable using the first analytical test, and 5) performing prior to the processing of the medical sample in the analytical laboratory, at least one mitigation action in response to determining the compliance status, wherein: 5a) the at least one mitigation action comprises modifying the scheduling data to reassign the medical sample to a second analytical test. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim recites a process of determining what to do with samples. Independent claims 15 and 18 recite similar limitations and are also directed to an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Depending claims 2-5, 9, 12-13, 17, and 20-28 include all of the limitations of claims 1, 15, and 18, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claim 2 adds the additional step of “following modification of the scheduling data, forwarding instructions to a laboratory scheduling system to use the second analytical test to process the medical sample, according to the modification of the scheduled data, to generate a test result”; claim 25 adds the additional steps of “determining, based on second sample data associated with a second medical sample, that the second medical sample is compliant with the first analytical test”, and “modifying the scheduling data to assign the second medical sample to the first analytical test in place of the first medical sample”; claim 26 adds the additional steps of “reassign the first medical sample from the first analytical test to the second analytical test” and ”reassign the second medical sample from the second analytical test to the first analytical test”; and claims 27-28 add the additional steps of “determine, based on second sample data associated with a second medical sample, that the second medical sample is compliant with the first analytical test” and “modify the scheduling data to assign the second medical sample to the first analytical test in place of the first medical sample”. Additionally, the limitations of depending claims 3-5, 9, 12-13, 17, and 20-24 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 2-5, 9, 12-13, 17, and 20-28 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 15, and 18 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) a processor (from claim 15), b) memory storing program data that, when executed by the processor, causes the analytical testing management system to perform functions (from claim 15), and c) an in-vitro diagnostic instrument (from claim 22) to perform the claimed steps.
The claims also include the additional element step of 2) “receiving sensor data captured, during transportation of the medical sample, by one or more sensors of a remote agent device used to transport the medical sample”.
The a) processor, b) memory storing program data that, when executed by the processor, causes the analytical testing management system to perform functions, and c) an in-vitro diagnostic instrument (could also be deemed post-solution activity as the claims do not focus on performing testing) in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification, where the processor and memory are not anything but what may be considered as generic computer components, and the test is merely applied using the instrument, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Furthermore, the additional element step of 2) “receiving sensor data captured, during transportation of the medical sample, by one or more sensors of a remote agent device used to transport the medical sample” in these steps adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, 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. 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, the additional elements of using a) a processor, b) memory storing program data that, when executed by the processor, causes the analytical testing management system to perform functions, and c) an in-vitro diagnostic instrument to perform the claimed steps and the additional element step of 2) “receiving sensor data captured, during transportation of the medical sample, by one or more sensors of a remote agent device used to transport the medical sample” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or extra-solution activity in the form of well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (WURC activity) that does not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); and
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The current invention determines a compliance status utilizing a) a processor, b) memory storing program data that, when executed by the processor, causes the analytical testing management system to perform functions, and c) an in-vitro diagnostic instrument, thus these components are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or with generic computing components.
Lastly, the additional element step of 2) “receiving sensor data captured, during transportation of the medical sample, by one or more sensors of a remote agent device used to transport the medical sample” adds insignificant extra-solution activity/pre-solution activity in the form of WURC activity to the abstract idea. The following is an example of a court decision demonstrating computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives sensor data, and transmits the data to system over a network, for example the Internet.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1-5, 9, 12-13, 15, 17-18, and 20-28 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9, 12, 15, 17-18, 20-23, 25, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2019/0324047 to Depraetere et al. in view of G.B. 2597686 to Yannick.
As per claim 1, Depraetere et al. teaches a computer-implemented method for optimizing an assignment of a medical sample to an analytical test, prior to processing of the medical sample in an analytical laboratory using the analytical test, the method comprising:
--accessing scheduling data indicating an initial assignment of the medical sample to a first analytical test; (see: paragraph [0081] where schedule data is being accessed in the form of assigned test orders) and
--determining, based on the sample data, a compliance status indicating that the medical sample is non-compliant with the first analytical test, (see: paragraphs [0045] and [0114] where there is a determination of a compliance status for a sample based on the sample’s quality) by determining at least one of:
--that a sample quality metric of the medical sample, indicated by the sample data, violates an analytical test specification of the first analytical test, (see: paragraphs [0053] and [0114] where there is a determination that the sample quality is low and violates a test specification of the minimum quality in order to run that first test) or
--that the medical sample is unprocessable using the first analytical test; (see: paragraphs [0053] and [0114] where there is a determination that the sample quality is low and is unprocessable in order to run that first test) and
--performing prior to the processing of the medical sample in the analytical laboratory, at least one mitigation action in response to determining the compliance status, (see: paragraph [0053] where prior to processing the sample there is the performance of a mitigating action of changing the priority level of a test order in response to determining that the quality is low) wherein:
--the at least one mitigation action comprises modifying the scheduling data to reassign the medical sample to a second analytical test (see: paragraph [0053] where there is modification of the scheduling data to reassign the medical sample to a second analytical test (a rerun can qualify as a second analytical test as there is no distinction between a first and second apart from the name)).
Depraetere et al. may not further, specifically teach:
1) --receiving sensor data captured, during transportation of the medical sample, by one or more sensors of a remote agent device used to transport the medical sample; and
2) --determining sample data, associated with the medical sample, based at least in part on the sensor data captured during transportation of the medical sample.
Yannick teaches:
1) --receiving sensor data captured, during transportation of the medical sample, by one or more sensors of a remote agent device used to transport the medical sample; (see: paragraphs [0025] and [0055] where there is reception of sensor data captured during transport using a base station (remote agent device)) and
2) --determining sample data, associated with the medical sample, based at least in part on the sensor data captured during transportation of the medical sample (see: paragraph [0010] where there is a determination using sensor data captured during transportation of a sample by a sensor of a remote agent device (the device with the sensor)).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 1) receive sensor data captured, during transportation of the medical sample, by one or more sensors of a remote agent device used to transport the medical sample and 2) determine sample data, associated with the medical sample, based at least in part on the sensor data captured during transportation of the medical sample as taught by Yannick in the method as taught by Depraetere et al. with the motivation(s) of improving medical quality (see: paragraph [0007] of Yannick).
As per claim 2, Depraetere et al. and Yannick in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Depraetere et al. further teaches following modification of the scheduling data, forwarding instructions to a laboratory scheduling system to use the second analytical test to process the medical sample, according to the modification of the scheduling data to generate a test result (see: paragraph [0053] where prior to processing the sample there is the performance of a mitigating action of changing the priority level of a test order in response to determining that the quality is low. The modification here involves a forwarding of instructions to a scheduling system where the lower quality ones are being scheduled/prioritized for a later time slot).
As per claim 3, Depraetere et al. and Yannick in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Depraetere et al. further teaches wherein the at least one mitigation action further comprises at least one of flagging or invalidating a test order that had indicated that the first analytical test was to be used to process the medical sample according to the initial assignment (see: paragraphs [0053] and [0114] where the modification involves removing the assignment of the test with the low quality sample based on the compliance (the quality not meeting a certain level). The mitigation here comprises invalidating a test order via removing it).
As per claim 4, Depraetere et al. and Yannick in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Yannick further teaches wherein the sensor data, captured by the one or more sensors of the remote agent device, indicates one or more of:
--transport information associated with the transportation of the medical sample within the remote agent device, or
--storage condition information associated with storage of the medical sample within the remote agent device during transportation of the medical sample (see: paragraph [0010] where there is temperature and humidity being tracked during transportation).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 5, Depraetere et al. and Yannick in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Depraetere et al. further teaches wherein determining the compliance status comprises:
--determining, based on the sample data, the sample quality metric for the medical sample; (see: paragraphs [0045] and [0114] where there is a determination of a compliance status for a sample based on the sample’s quality)
--identifying the analytical test specification for the first analytical test; (does not need to be met as the above limitation was met) and
--performing a compliance process by assessing, for the medical sample, whether the sample quality metric violates the analytical test specification of the first analytical test (does not need to be met as the first limitation was met).
As per claim 9, Depraetere et al. and Yannick in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Depraetere et al. further teaches determining that the sample quality metric of the medical sample, indicated by the sample data, is compliant with a second analytical test specification of the second analytical test (see: paragraphs [0053] and [0114] where there is a determination that the sample quality is low and violates a test specification of the minimum quality in order to run that test/second test. Thus, there is also a determination that the sample quality is not low and does not violate a test).
As per claim 12, Depraetere et al. and Yannick in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Depraetere et al. further teaches wherein:
--the scheduling data comprises a priority ranking of analytical tests to be performed on medical samples, (see: paragraphs [0093] – [0094] where there is a priority ranking of the tests) and
--modifying the scheduling data comprises modifying the priority ranking based on reassignment of the medical sample to the second analytical test (see: paragraphs [0092] – [0093] where there is updating of priority level. Also see: paragraphs [0053] and [0114] where the modification involves removing the assignment of the test with the low quality sample based on the compliance. The modification here is based on the priority levels).
As per claim 15, claim 15 is similar to claim 1 and is rejected in a similar manner to claim 1 using the Depraetere et al. and Yannick references in combination. Depraetere et al. further teaches:
--a processor; (see: paragraph [0132] where there is a processor) and
--memory storing program data that, when executed by the processor, causes the analytical testing management system to perform operations (see: paragraph [0127] where there is a memory).
As per claim 17, claim 17 is similar to claim 12 and is rejected in a similar manner to claim 12 using the Depraetere et al. and Yannick references in combination.
As per claim 18, claim 18 is similar to claim 1 and is rejected in a similar manner to claim 1 using the Depraetere et al. and Yannick references in combination.
As per claim 20, claim 17 is similar to claim 12 and is rejected in a similar manner to claim 12 using the Depraetere et al. and Yannick references in combination.
As per claim 21, Depraetere et al. and Yannick in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Yannick further teaches wherein the sample data is determined based on:
--the sensor data captured by the one or more sensors of the remote agent device, (see: paragraph [0010] where there is a determination using sensor data captured during transportation of a sample by a sensor of a remote agent device (the device with the sensor)) and
--additional data indicating at least one of:
--collection information associated with collection of the medical sample from a patient, or
--centrifugation information associated with centrifugation of the medical sample after the collection of the medical sample and prior to arrival of the medical sample at the analytical laboratory (see: paragraph [0012] where there is such centrifugal information).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 22, Depraetere et al. and Yannick in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Depraetere et al. further teaches wherein the first analytical test is performed via an in-vitro diagnostic instrument in the analytical laboratory (see: paragraph [0003] where there is in-vitro test, which would include in-vitro test equipment).
As per claim 23, Depraetere et al. and Yannick in combination teaches the method of claim 4, see discussion of claim 4. Yannick further teaches wherein the one or more of the transport information or the storage condition information, indicated by the sensor data captured by the one or more sensors during the transportation of the medical sample within the remote agent device, comprises one or more of a temperature measurement, a humidity measurement, a light exposure measurement, a shock exposure measurement, or a storage duration measurement (see: paragraph [0076] where there is temperature and humidity information inside the package during transport of the sample).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 25, Depraetere et al. and Yannick in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Depraetere et al. further teaches wherein the medical sample is a first medical sample and the method further comprises:
--determining, based on second sample data associated with a second medical sample, that the second medical sample is compliant with the first analytical test; (see: paragraph [0114] where there is a determination that a new sample is needed and that the new sample is compliant with the test) and
--modifying the scheduling data to assign the second medical sample to the first analytical test in place of the first medical sample (see: paragraph [0114] where a new sample is being used to modify the schedule to be tested instead of the initial sample).
As per claim 27, claim 27 is similar to claim 25 and is rejected in a similar manner to claim 25 using the Depraetere et al. and Yannick references in combination.
As per claim 28, claim 28 is similar to claim 25 and is rejected in a similar manner to claim 25 using the Depraetere et al. and Yannick references in combination.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2019/0324047 to Depraetere et al. in view of G.B. 2597686 to Yannick as applied to claim 1, and further in view of U.S. 2014/0122106 to Malven et al.
As per claim 13, Depraetere et al. and Yannick in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein:
--modifying the scheduling data comprises assigning the medical sample to the second analytical test and at least one additional analytical test.
Malven et al. teaches:
--modifying the scheduling data comprises assigning the medical sample to the second analytical test and at least one additional analytical test (see: claims 3 and 4 where there is modification of a test panel to add one or more tests).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the scheduling data comprises assigning the medical sample to the second analytical test and at least one additional analytical test as taught by Malven et al. in the method as taught by Depraetere et al. and Yannick in combination with the motivation(s) of improving the healthcare decision making process (see: paragraph [0108] of Malven et al.).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2019/0324047 to Depraetere et al. in view of G.B. 2597686 to Yannick as applied to claim 1, and further in view of U.S. 2024/0241620 to Wohlstadter et al.
As per claim 24, Depraetere et al. and Yannick in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the at least one mitigation action further comprises presenting, via a display, a notification indicating:
--the compliance status associated with the medical sample, and
--that the scheduling data has been modified to reassign the medical sample to the second analytical test.
Wohlstadter et al. teaches:
--wherein the at least one mitigation action further comprises presenting, via a display, a notification indicating:
--the compliance status associated with the medical sample, (see: paragraphs [0845] and [0864] where there is a display of a compliance status for the sample in the form of a needed rerun of the test) and
--that the scheduling data has been modified to reassign the medical sample to the second analytical test (see: paragraph [0864] where there is display of which samples are to be repeated (second analytical test)).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the at least one mitigation action further comprises presenting, via a display, a notification indicating: the compliance status associated with the medical sample and that the scheduling data has been modified to reassign the medical sample to the second analytical test as taught by Wohlstadter et al. in the method as taught by Depraetere et al. and Yannick in combination with the motivation(s) of improving testing (see: paragraph [0003] of Wohlstadter et al.).
No Art Rejections
Claim 26 does not have an art rejection in view of the potential combination of references which could be used to reject this claim being unreasonable to combine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights