DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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”), including “means for controlling the at least one veterinary analyzer” in Claims 1 & 18, “means for activating a speaker” in Claim 2, 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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10-11, 15-16, & 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US20200243171) in view of Kroehl (US20220254353).
As per claim 1, Schmidt teaches a voice interactive veterinary system comprising:
at least one veterinary analyzer to conduct a diagnostic test of a sample of a patient (para. 58: laboratory instruments for conducting testing on samples);
at least one two-way laboratory hub in communication with the at least one veterinary analyzer, wherein the at least one two-way laboratory hub is operable to control operation of the at least one veterinary analyzer (para. 58: middleware hub controls various laboratory instruments via interface connection).
Schmidt does not expressly teach means for controlling the at least one veterinary analyzer by voice communication via at least one voice-controlled device, wherein the at least one voice-controlled device is in communication with the at least one two-way laboratory hub and the at least one voice-controlled device receives a voice command and the voice command is transmitted to the at least one veterinary analyzer via the at least one two-way laboratory hub.
Kroehl, however, teaches to a laboratory system with various laboratory devices that can be controlled via voice commands input into a portable device and sent to a server (Fig. 2; para. 34-35).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Kroehl with Schmidt based on the motivation of provide an improved laboratory system and method for controlling at least one laboratory device without manual intervention (Kroehl - para. 7).
As per claim 2, Schmidt and Kroehl teach the voice interactive veterinary system of claim 1. Schmidt does not expressly teach further comprising:
means for activating a speaker of the at least one voice-controlled device to announce a status of the at least one veterinary analyzer.
Kroehl, however, teaches to the portable device is further configured to output the received result to the user via the speaker (para. 13).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 3, Schmidt and Kroehl teach the voice interactive veterinary system of claim 1. Schmidt does not expressly teach wherein the at least one veterinary analyzer is selected from the group consisting of: a clinical chemistry analyzer; a hematology analyzer; a urine analyzer; and an immunoassay reader.
Kroehl, however, teaches to the at least one laboratory device is a plurality of laboratory devices including a chemical analysis system (par. 70-73).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 4, Schmidt and Kroehl teach the voice interactive veterinary system of claim 1. Schmidt teaches further comprising:
a database storing a plurality of rules for performing diagnostic testing, wherein the at least one two-way laboratory hub is in communication with the database for access to the plurality of rules (para. 58: rules engine stored on server),
wherein the at least one voice-controlled device receives a test query and the test query is transmitted to the at least one two-way laboratory hub, and in response, the at least one two-way laboratory hub accesses the database to identify rules of the plurality of rules for performing diagnostic testing specific for the test query (para. 33: based on user input system accesses rules engine to determine next step in workflow),
wherein the at least one two-way laboratory hub sends the rules of the plurality of rules for performing diagnostic testing specific for the test query to the at least one device (para. 30, 33: system generates output of rules engine to user device).
Schmidt does not expressly teach to a voice controlled device outputting results via a speaker.
Kroehl, however, teaches to the portable device is further configured to output the received result to the user via the speaker (para. 13).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 5, Schmidt and Kroehl teach the voice interactive veterinary system of claim 1. Schmidt teaches wherein the command is indicative of a first order to conduct a first diagnostic test of a sample from a patient on the at least one veterinary analyzer, and wherein the at least one veterinary analyzer can be queued for executing received orders, and wherein the at least one two-way laboratory hub sends the first order to the at least one veterinary analyzer for input into the queue for the at least one veterinary analyzer (para. 65, 68: middleware hub can receive testing orders and worklists for specific laboratory instrument and transmit order to instrument).
Schmidt does not expressly teach to a voice command.
Kroehl, however, teaches to a laboratory system with various laboratory devices that can be controlled via voice commands input into a portable device and sent to a server (Fig. 2; para. 34-35).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 6, Schmidt and Kroehl teach the voice interactive veterinary system of claim 5. Schmidt teaches wherein:
the at least one two-way laboratory hub receives the command from the at least one voice-controlled device, and responsively modifies an order of testing in a queue of the at least one veterinary analyzer based on the command (para. 65, 67-68: middleware hub can receive testing orders and worklists for specific laboratory instrument and transmit order to instrument; existing lab orders can be changed based on input of new data).
Schmidt does not expressly teach to a voice command.
Kroehl, however, teaches to a laboratory system with various laboratory devices that can be controlled via voice commands input into a portable device and sent to a server (Fig. 2; para. 34-35).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 7, Schmidt and Kroehl teach the voice interactive veterinary system of claim 5. Schmidt teaches further comprising:
a charge-capture server in communication with the at least one two-way laboratory hub, wherein the charge-capture server receives from the at least one two-way laboratory hub information indicative of the first diagnostic test for indexing into a record for the patient (para. 77: analytics server receives test result data for storage).
As per claim 10, Schmidt and Kroehl teach the voice interactive veterinary system of claim 1. Schmidt teaches further comprising:
a plurality of veterinary analyzers, wherein the at least one veterinary analyzer is one of the plurality of veterinary analyzers, and wherein the plurality of veterinary analyzers each can be queued for executing received orders (para. 57: plurality of laboratory instruments where each can be controlled via middleware hub),
wherein the command is indicative of instructions to modify respective queues of the plurality of veterinary analyzers (para. 58: based on input middleware hub can adjust test orders sent from one instrument to another), and
wherein the at least one two-way laboratory hub transmits the instructions to modify the respective queues of the plurality of veterinary analyzers to the plurality of veterinary analyzers (para. 58: based on input middleware hub can adjust test orders sent from one instrument to another).
Kroehl, however, teaches to a laboratory system with various laboratory devices that can be controlled via voice commands input into a portable device and sent to a server (Fig. 2; para. 34-35).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 11, Schmidt and Kroehl teach the voice interactive veterinary system of claim 10. Schmidt teaches wherein:
the plurality of veterinary analyzers execute the received orders to conduct diagnostic tests (para. 77: laboratory instruments output test results), and the plurality of veterinary analyzers send an alert and status of the diagnostic tests to the at least one two-way laboratory hub as testing is performed including an indication of a pending runtime error in which a veterinary analyzer of the plurality of veterinary analyzers remains idle due to testing being paused (para. 64, 77: laboratory instruments can generate technical validation information and flagging information for monitoring technical performance to middleware hub);
the at least one two-way laboratory hub sends the alert and status of the diagnostic tests to the at least one device (para. 30, 62: graphical user interface can receive and output data).
Schmidt does not expressly teach the at least one voice-controlled device communicates and plays out the alert and status of the diagnostic tests via a speaker.
Kroehl, however, teaches to the portable device is further configured to output the received result to the user via the speaker and where the portable device can be a mobile device (para. 13, 35).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 15, Schmidt and Kroehl teach the voice interactive veterinary system of claim 1. Schmidt teaches further comprising:
a plurality of veterinary analyzers, wherein the at least one veterinary analyzer is one of the plurality of veterinary analyzers, and wherein the plurality of veterinary analyzers can be queued for executing received orders, and wherein the at least one two-way laboratory hub is in communication with each of the plurality of veterinary analyzers (para. 58, 65, 68: middleware hub controls various laboratory instruments via interface connection; middleware hub can receive testing orders and worklists for specific laboratory instrument and transmit order to instrument),
wherein the queue of each of the plurality of veterinary analyzers is modifiable only via the at least one two-way laboratory hub (para. 5, 65: system can be implemented in a fully automated laboratory system),
wherein the command is indicative of instructions to modify one or more respective queues of the plurality of veterinary analyzers (para. 65, 68: middleware hub can receive testing orders and worklists for specific laboratory instrument and transmit order to instrument), and
wherein the at least one two-way laboratory hub transmits the instructions to modify the one or more respective queues of the plurality of veterinary analyzers to the plurality of veterinary analyzers (para. 65, 68: middleware hub can receive testing orders and worklists for specific laboratory instrument and transmit order to instrument).
Schmidt does not expressly teach to a voice command.
Kroehl, however, teaches to a laboratory system with various laboratory devices that can be controlled via voice commands input into a portable device and sent to a server (Fig. 2; para. 34-35).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 16, Schmidt and Kroehl teach the voice interactive veterinary system of claim 1. Schmidt teaches wherein the at least one two-way laboratory hub receives and displays one or more of: practice information management software (PIMS) data, and data and status of the at least one veterinary analyzer (para. 57: middleware hub receives data from various laboratory instruments).
As per claim 18, Schmidt and Kroehl teach the voice interactive veterinary system of claim 1. Schmidt teaches wherein the means for controlling the at least one veterinary analyzer includes, a wireless receiver and transmitter, and a network for wireless communication (para. 16: instrument communication interface allows for control and wireless communication of laboratory instrument).
Schmidt does not expressly teach the wherein the means for controlling the at least one veterinary analyzer includes at least one voice-controlled device.
Kroehl, however, teaches to a laboratory system with various laboratory devices that can be controlled via voice commands input into a portable device and sent to a server (Fig. 2; para. 34-35).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 19, Schmidt and Kroehl teach the voice interactive veterinary system of claim 1. Schmidt does not expressly teach wherein the at least one voice-controlled device includes a wearable device.
Kroehl, however, teaches to the portable device is further configured to output the received result to the user via the speaker and where the portable device can be a mobile device (para. 13, 35).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 20, Schmidt and Kroehl teach the voice interactive veterinary system of claim 1. Schmidt does not expressly teach further comprising a plurality of voice-controlled devices, wherein the at least one voice-controlled device is one of the plurality of voice-controlled devices, and wherein the plurality of voice-controlled devices are positioned separately from each other within a veterinary laboratory.
Kroehl, however, teaches to the portable device is further configured to output the received result to the user via the speaker and where the devices can be placed in a room evenly distributed (para. 13, 19).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Claims 8-9, 12, 14, & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US20200243171) in view of Kroehl (US20220254353) as applied to claims 1, 5, & 11 above, and in further view of Haas (US20110046910).
As per claim 8, Schmidt and Kroehl teach the voice interactive veterinary system of claim 5, wherein the at least one two-way laboratory hub (i) receives an output of a diagnostic test performed by the at least one veterinary analyzer (Schmidt - para. 65: results obtained from instrument and communicated to middleware hub), (ii) generates a recommendation of follow-on testing to perform based on the output of the diagnostic test (Schmidt - para. 31: system can update and add new testing orders based on new test result data received), and at least one voice-controlled device (Kroehl – para. 34,35: voice commands input into a portable device).
Schmidt and Kroehl do not expressly teach (iii) sends the recommendation to the at least device to announce the recommendation to a technician.
Haas, however, teaches to a device outputting audio notifications to a user comprising the results of a test and notification of the next step in a workflow including recommendations for additional testing (para. 65-66, 74-76).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Haas with Schmidt and Kroehl based on the motivation of provide a system for directing and coordinating the operations of hardware components and performance of tasks of laboratory personnel (Haas - para. 10).
As per claim 9, Schmidt, Kroehl, & Haas teach the voice interactive veterinary system of claim 8. Schmidt and Kroehl teach wherein upon receipt of a second voice command by the at least one voice-controlled device to follow the recommendation (Kroehl – para. 34, 35: laboratory system with various laboratory devices that can be controlled via voice commands input into a portable device and sent to a server), the at least one two-way laboratory hub generates a second order to conduct a second diagnostic test of another sample from the patient and sends the second order to a second veterinary analyzer for input into a queue for the second veterinary analyzer (Schmidt - para. 65, 67, 68: middleware hub can receive testing orders and worklists for specific laboratory instrument and transmit order to instrument; existing lab orders can be changed based on input of new data), wherein the second veterinary analyzer can be queued for executing received orders (Schmidt - para. 65, 68: middleware hub can receive testing orders and worklists for specific laboratory instruments and transmit order to instruments).
As per claim 12, Schmidt and Kroehl teach the voice interactive veterinary system of claim 11, wherein:
the at least one two-way laboratory hub executes computer readable instructions to perform a rules-based engine, including mappings of ranges of test results received from the plurality of veterinary analyzers to complimentary tests to be performed to confirm or assist with a diagnosis, and generates a recommendation of follow-on testing to perform based on the output of at least one of the diagnostic tests (Schmidt - para. 91, 92: system executes rules to compare received test result generated from laboratory instruments against specific thresholds and generates follow up testing to be performed);
the at least one two-way laboratory hub sends the recommendation (Schmidt - para. 30, 62: graphical user interface can receive and output data from middleware hub) to the at least one voice-controlled device (Kroehl – para. 34,35: voice commands input into a portable device)
Schmidt and Kroehl do not expressly teach sends the recommendation to the at least one voice-controlled device for playout on the speaker.
Haas, however, teaches to a device outputting audio notifications to a user comprising the results of a test and notification of the next step in a workflow including recommendations for additional testing (para. 65-66, 74-76).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 8, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 14, Schmidt, Kroehl, & Haas teach the voice interactive veterinary system of claim 12. Schmidt and Kroehl teach wherein:
based on the follow-on testing to be performed by the one of the plurality of veterinary analyzers, the at least one two-way laboratory hub generates a notification of information indicating items needed to perform the follow-on testing, and sends the notification (Schmidt – para. 70, 77: middleware hub identifies additional testing required and generates notification by communicating with one or more personnel via mobile device) to the at least one voice-controlled device (Kroehl – para. 34,35: voice commands input into a portable device).
Schmidt and Kroehl do not expressly teach the at least one voice-controlled device provides the notification, via a speaker, for playout.
Haas, however, teaches to a device outputting audio notifications to a user comprising the results of a test and notification of the next step in a workflow (para. 65-66).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 8, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 17, Schmidt and Kroehl teach the voice interactive veterinary system of claim 1. Schmidt and Kroehl teach wherein:
the at least one two-way laboratory hub generates a notification of steps for performance of diagnostic testing by the veterinary analyzer (para. 33: based on user input system accesses rules engine to determine next step in workflow), and sends the notification to the at least one device (Schmidt - para. 30, 33: system generates output of rules engine to user device);
at least one voice-controlled device (Kroehl – para. 34,35: voice commands input into a portable device).
Schmidt and Kroehl do not expressly teach to the at least one device provides the notification, via a speaker, for playout.
Haas, however, teaches to a device outputting audio notifications to a user comprising the results of a test and notification of the next step in a workflow (para. 65-66).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 8, and incorporated herein.
Subject Matter Eligibility
With regards to 35 U.S.C. 101, Claims 1-20 are patent eligible when considered in view of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. The present invention is not properly interpreted as being directed towards the abstract idea of a mathematical concept because it is not directed towards a mathematical relationship, formula, equation, and/or calculation. Additionally, the present invention is not reasonably interpreted as being directed towards the abstract idea of a mental process because it is not reasonably interpreted as observations, evaluations, judgments and/or opinions that are reasonably performed in the human mind. Furthermore, the present invention is not properly interpreted as being directed towards the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because it is not reasonably interpreted as a fundamental economic principle or practice, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Rather, the present invention is directed towards improvements in technical field of diagnostic instrument workflow for preventing idling of diagnostic instruments. Furthermore, even assuming, arguendo, that the present invention were directed towards one of the aforementioned abstract ideas, it nonetheless includes additional elements that integrate any purported abstract ideas into a practical application and qualify as "significantly more". Specifically, the additional limitations including the combination of the features from the diagnostic testing instrument workflow for prevention of idling of diagnostic instruments provide improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field by reducing the idling time of diagnostic instruments and therefore increasing productivity of the diagnostic instruments - see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
All of the cited references fail to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the dependent claim 13. In particular, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest the combination of: the at least one voice-controlled device receives a second voice command as a confirmation to perform the follow-on testing, and the second voice command is transmitted to the at least one two-way laboratory hub; and the at least one two-way laboratory hub schedules the follow-on testing to be performed by one or more of the plurality of veterinary analyzers by input into respective queues for the plurality of veterinary analyzers, wherein the scheduling occurs in an order based on (i) needs of a plurality of patients and (ii) a number of pending orders in the respective queues.
The most relevant prior art of record includes:
Schmidt (US20200243171) teaches to a middleware device or software may be placed in communication with one or more testing instruments and a lab information system. As samples are collected from patients and tested with the testing instruments, test results pass through the middleware and are analyzed in context with other data. Kroehl (US20220254353) teaches to a laboratory system including at least one laboratory device; at least one laboratory software module which is designed to process data obtained from the at least one laboratory device; a data processing device with control software that provides an interface for operating the at least one laboratory device and/or the at least one laboratory software module; and a portable device with a microphone, wherein the device is connected interoperably to the control software via a network, wherein the device is designed, in interoperation with the control software, to allow a user to operate the at least one laboratory device and/or the at least one laboratory software module without manual intervention, by speaking into the microphone. Haas (US20110046910) teaches to a system and method for testing samples and, in one embodiment, a system for directing and coordinating the operations of hardware components and performance of tasks of laboratory personnel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Salganicoff (US20160321414) teaches to a framework diagnostic test planning is described herein. In accordance with one aspect, the framework receives data representing one or more sample patients, diagnostic tests administered to the one or more sample patients, diagnostic test results and confirmed medical conditions associated with the administered diagnostic tests.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan K Ng whose telephone number is (571)270-7941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-7949. 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.
/Jonathan Ng/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights