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 .
This is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on 8/23/24 wherein:
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 abstract idea without significantly more. With respect to step 2A, prong 1, The claim(s) 1 as recited “determining a set of robot specifications; determining a set of constraints defining an experiment; determining an initial computational representation of the experiment based on the constraints; determining a set of errors based on the computational representation of the experiment and the set of robot specifications; determining an updated computational representation of the experiment based on the set of errors” are process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion). For example, as for the step “determining a set of robot specification, determining a set of constraints defining an experiment”, the context of these limitations encompass that a person can mentally plan what type of robot need to be perform the liquid handling, and what liquid or chemical need to be mixed for the experiment, or how long or what temperature that are needed. As for the step “determining an initial computational representation of the experiment based on the constraints”, this can encompass a person can mentally or using pend and paper to map out or lay out what steps should be done for the experiment. As for the step “determining a set of errors based on the computational representation of the experiment and the set of robot specifications; determining an updated computational representation of the experiment based on the set of errors”, the encompass that a person can determine the type liquid handling robot that can able to handle the particular amount of liquid (volume range). For example, the small liquid handler is designed to manage small volumes and is not designed to manage large volume of liquid.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under the 2A prong 1 analysist.
With respect to the 2A prong 2 analysist, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claiming using a processor to perform all the claimed steps of “determining….”. These steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic processor including user interface) such that is amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Also, determining instruction for a laboratory robot, a user interface for display output information is not considered as significantly more than the abstract idea because it is merely outputting data, and the step of “wherein the laboratory robot is configured to execute the experiment based on instructions” is merely an intended used of the system/method and is considered as a general linking to a particular technological environment and thus is not a meaningful limitation. In the others words, a liquid handling robot is not part of the system which comprising processor and a user interface as recited in claim 12. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to the 2B analysis, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discuss above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer component (a processor includes a user interface) to perform all of the recited steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The liquid handling robot is not part of the system as recited in claim 1 and considered as a general linking to a particular technological environment and thus is not a meaningful limitation. A user interface for display output information, and determining instruction for a laboratory robot are considered as insignificantly extra solution because they are merely outputting data. Thus, it is well understood routine conventional as it has been held by the court. Particularly, receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-2 are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claims 1 and 12 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WASHINGTON ET AL (US 2022/0040853). Herein after WASHINGTON.
As for claim 1, WASHINGTON discloses a method, comprising:
determining a set of robot specifications
{see at least figures 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, abstract, pars. 0005, 0029 discloses robots 150 that are used in the labs 140 are liquid handlers, microplate movers, centrifuges, cappers/decappers, sorters, labelers, loaders; Each robot 150 may include one or more sensors attached to elements of the robots 150, such as position sensors, inertial measurement units (IMUs), accelerometers, cameras; par. 0033-0034 discloses robot specification such as The robot arm 225 comprises one or more jointed, moveable pieces with one or more degrees of freedom of motion, The robot hand 230 comprises one or more jointed, moveable pieces configured to interact with the components in the lab 140D; and par. 0046 discloses identifying the robot 150 with the lab 140 to perform the protocol};
determining a set of constraints defining an experiment
{see at least par. 0046-0047 discloses e.g., the instruction module 310 may group one or more protocols for performance in a lab. For instance, the instruction module 310 may receive multiple sets of instructions indicating protocols to perform in a lab 140. The instruction module 310 may determine, based on the components required for each protocol, which protocols can be performed simultaneously or sequentially in a single lab 140 and create a grouped protocol including steps of the determined protocols. The instruction module 310 may send the grouped protocol to the protocol module 330 for performance in the lab 140;
at least par. 0067 discloses the constraint in perform the protocol in the lab e.g. the request for the simulation may include one or more parameters. Examples of parameters include a desired experimentation time for the protocol, a budget, a necessary skillset for human operators, necessary equipment 170 and/or reagents 180, and the like. The graphic user interface module 355 sends the request with the parameters to the simulation module 340, which determines one or more variants to simulate to satisfy the parameters;
see also at least figures 3, 8-9 pars. 0046, 0077-0078 discloses e.g., the instruction module 310 may access the lab database 380 to determine which components are available in the lab 140 and select only available lab equipment 170 and reagents 180 for the step};
determining an initial computational representation of the experiment based on the constraints
{see at least figures 5-7, 8-9 discloses the representation of the lab, and at least pars. 0067-0068, 0077-0078, 0080, 0083. For example, par. 0078 determine which components are available in the lab 140 and select only available lab equipment 170 and reagents 180 for the step};
determining a set of errors based on the computational representation of the experiment and the set of robot specifications; determining an updated computational representation of the experiment based on the set of errors;
{see at least pars. 0041-0042, 0069, 0079 discloses detect one or more errors in the steps. An error may be a combination of one or more components (robots, equipment) that could not practically function together to perform an operation or using components to perform an operation that would violate a set of safety protocols…...The instruction module 310 receives a selection of one or more components from the graphic user interface module 355 and updates the step in the protocol database 390 to use the selected components. In some embodiments, the instruction module 310 may determine one or more variants for the components or operation and update the protocol with the variants}
determining instructions for a laboratory robot based on the updated computational representation and the set of robot specifications, wherein the laboratory robot is configured to execute the experiment based on the instructions
{see at least at least abstract, figures 89, pars. 0041-0042, 0077-0078. 0080-0081 which discloses configuring the robot to perform the identifies steps in figures 8-9}.
As for claim 2, WASHINGTON discloses wherein the set of constraints comprise an initial concentration and a final concentration, and wherein the initial computational representation comprises a final volume and a final transfer volume associated with a final transfer operation {see at least pars. 0031, 0034, 0042, 0044, 0083}.
As for claim 3, WASHINGTON discloses wherein determining the updated computational representation comprises: determining an intermediate transfer volume associated with an intermediate transfer operation before the final transfer operation; and updating the final transfer volume {see at least pars. 0031, 0034, 0042, 0044, 0079, 0083,}.
As for claim 4, WASHINGTON discloses wherein the set of errors is determined based on at least one of a minimum transfer volume or a minimum well volume {see at least pars. 0041-0042 and 0044}
As for claim 5, WASHINGTON discloses wherein the set of robot specifications comprises a pipette tip type {see at least pars. 0031, 0033, 0036-0037, 0083}.
As for claim 6, WASHINGTON discloses determining a runtime estimate for the experiment based on the updated computational representation and the set of robot specifications {see at least pars. 0053, 0067, 0091}.
As for claim 7, WASHINGTON discloses wherein the updated computational representation comprises a transfer volume {see at least pars. 0034, 0036-0038}, wherein the set of robot specifications comprises at least one of an aspiration rate or a dispense rate {at least pars. 0036-0037, 0083}.
As for claim 8, WASHINGTON discloses wherein a robot specification in the set of robot specifications is determined based on the updated computational representation 0041-0042, 0069, 0079.
As for claim 9, WASHINGTON discloses wherein the set of constraints are determined using a large language model {see at least abstract, pars. 0035, 0037-0038, 0043-0044}.
As for claim 10, WASHINGTON discloses wherein a user provides an input to the large language model, wherein the set of constraints are determined based on an output from the large language model {see at least figures 4-8, pars. 0036-0039}.
As for claim 11, WASHINGTON discloses wherein the set of robot specifications are determined using a large language model {see at least abstract, pars. 0035, 0037-0038, 0043-0044}.
As for claims 12-16, 19 the limitations of these claims have been noted in the rejection above, they are therefore rejected for the same reason sets forth above.
As for claim 20, WASHINGTON discloses wherein the user interface is further configured to receive deck layout specifications, wherein the instructions for the liquid handling robot are determined based on the deck layout specifications {see at least figures 4-8}.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WASHINGTON as applied to claims above and in view of FINK (US 2015/0158177).
As for claims 17-18, WASHINGTON discloses the set of error and the set of robot specification comprises a pipette tip type as shown in at least pars. 0031, 0033, 0036-0037, 0083. WASHINGTON does not explicitly disclose the set of errors comprises a collision hazard error and wherein the collision hazard error is determined based on the pipette tip type. However, such this limitation has been taught in FINK reference at least in pars. 0016, 0031, 0045, 0049. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective of filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of FINK into the system of WASHINGTON since detecting the error and recovery the error would be reducing the damage to the pipette tip.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stojadinovie (US 2022/0404269): determining the volume dispensed by any liquid handling device (automated or manual).
Leboudec (US 2021/0025906): laboratory automation device control program generation with object detection.
Stoy et al (US 10,702,990): robot comprising a horizontal or horizontally slanted transparent experiment layer being adapted to support items at arbitrary positions on or in the experiment layer.
Streibl et al (US 2016/0018427): Container identification data from a container inspection unit that analyzes a container containing a liquid is combined with liquid level detection raw data from a liquid level detection unit that analyzes the container containing the liquid and a liquid level detection result is generated.
Berman et al (US 2007/0174653): Distributed system and method for error recovery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kira Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-1614. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached on 571-272-6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRA NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656