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 Office Action is responsive to the Applicant’s response filed August 7, 2026.
This application has been examined. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application, and Claims 1-20 stand rejected.
Specification
The objection to the title of the invention set forth in the prior Office Action is acknowledged as addressed by Applicant's amendment of the title in the Amendment filed August 7, 2026. Subject to confirmation that the substitute title is descriptive of the claimed invention (see header table above), the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Double Patenting
4. Claims 1-20 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of commonly owned U.S. Patent No. 12,333,344, for the reasons of record in the prior Office action, which are incorporated herein by reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 t which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Eberhardt et al. (“Eberhardt”) (US NO. 11,454,574) in view of Jain (US No. 8,935,317).
In order to expedite and avoid piecemeal prosecution, the following rejection is made to the extent that the claims are understood, by considering those elements which are understood and interpreting their function in a manner which is consistent with the recited goals of the claims, and then applying the best available art.
The examiner relies on the entire teachings of Eberhardt and Jain reference; the applicant should carefully consider the entire teachings of the above-mentioned references to better understand the examiner’s position.
In regard to claims 1, 11, Eberhardt discloses one or more non-transitory machine-readable storage media storing instructions that, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations for segmenting data processing workflows, a computer implemented method/system for segmenting data processing workflows across multiple laboratory instruments, comprising: determining a configuration of an instrument system, the instrument system including an analytical instrument coupled with an instrument PC (IPC), the IPC being configured to receive raw data from the analytical instrument, to process the raw data (as shown in Fig. 1C, which is reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience, Eberhardt discloses the system determines configuration of analytical instructions connected to control computer (IPC) that receives raw data, process it, and communication with client devices. See col. 4:20-55; col. 5:10-45; FIG. 1C: a method comprising providing, by at least one processor using a process control layer, a route leg to a middle control layer. The method also comprises generating, by at least one processor and the middle control layer, instructions to control the operation of a subsystem of the route leg or a subassembly container of the route leg, wherein the subassembly container controls multiple subassemblies associated with the subassembly container. The method also comprises executing the instructions by a device control layer. In some embodiments, the middle control layer (MCL) may further receive route legs from the PCL to process, and these route legs may be further optimized by the MCL. The MCL may operate independently of the PCL and the WML);
PNG
media_image1.png
787
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
segmenting a data process workflow based at least in part on the configuration, attributing at least a subset of constituent operations of the data process workflow to the client computing device or the IPC (in Eberhardt, workflow is segmented and operations are assigned to either the instrument control PC or client computing device. See col. 7:62 thru col. 8:36; FIG. 1B: the management architecture 100 can manage data of at least three hierarchical levels, the laboratory level 50, the instrument level 60 and the subsystem level 70, with each level responsible for its own specific set of data. These layers can be in the form of software components that are stored on a memory and/or computer readable medium and that work with one or more processors (e.g., data processors) residing on one or more computer apparatuses. For example, all three layers 50, 60, 70 could reside on a computer readable medium on one computational apparatus with one or more processors (e.g., microprocessors). Alternatively, the three layers 50, 60, 70 could reside on three computer readable media residing on three operationally computational apparatuses, each with one or more processors (e.g., microprocessors). In some embodiments, the workflow management layer 50(b) resides in a first computational apparatus (e.g., a first server computer)).
Eberhardt does not explicitly disclose generating an updated configuration of the instrument system, generating an updated latency parameter using the updated configuration, and modifying the segmented data process workflow using the updated latency parameter. In the same field of endeavor, Jain, however, is directed to dynamically partitioning an application between a client and a server (or datacenter), wherein the partitioning decision is a function of network connectivity conditions between the client and the server, including latency and bandwidth (Jain, Abstract; col. 1:40-43; col. 4:23-60). Jain further discloses that the operating environment and network conditions on which the partition is based may change during execution of the application, and that when they do, components of the application migrate from the client to the server, or vice versa - i.e., a previously segmented allocation of application components between client and server is re-evaluated and modified in response to a change in the underlying (network/latency) conditions (Jain, figure 7, col. 11:28-12:-59) "these preferences may change during application execution resulting in components migrating from client to server or vice versa"). Because Jain's partitioning logic is expressly optimized against latency, a change in the monitored operating/network conditions (an updated configuration) necessarily produces an updated latency evaluation that in turn drives the reassignment of partitioned components (modifying the segmented workflow using the updated latency parameter).
PNG
media_image2.png
828
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eberhardt's laboratory workflow-management system to incorporate Jain's teaching of re-evaluating a latency parameter in response to a changed/updated configuration and modifying a previously segmented client/IPC task allocation accordingly. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Jain expressly teaches that this technique preserves an optimized division of processing labor between local and remote resources as conditions change, and because applying Jain's known latency-driven re-partitioning technique to Eberhardt's known multi-instrument, multi-layer workflow-segmentation architecture amounts to applying a known technique to a known device to yield the predictable result of an instrument system that continues to allocate processing efficiently as network or hardware conditions change during a run. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(A), (C).
In regard to claims 2, 12, Eberhardt discloses wherein modifying the segmented data process workflow comprises reattributing one or more constituent operations to the IPC from the client computing device (in Eberhardt, reattributing operations between the client computing device and the IPC (instrument control computer) during workflow modification. The system dynamically shifts tasks back to the IPC when updated latency or configuration indicates better performance on the instrument-side computer. See col. 8:19 thru col. 9:53). Eberhardt teaches a comprehensive laboratory workflow management system that includes dynamic configuration updating and real-time workflow modification. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the specific implementations claimed in the dependent claims are routine optimizations or predictable variations of the base system disclosed in the teaching of Eberhardt.
In regard to claims 3, 13, Eberhardt discloses wherein the updated configuration corresponds to a network bandwidth limitation, wherein the updated latency parameter comprises an increased data transfer latency, and wherein modifying the segmented data process workflow comprises reducing the data transfer latency of the data processing workflow (in Eberhardt, teaches detecting network bandwidth limitations, updating latency parameters accordingly, and modifying the workflow to reduce data transfer latency (e.g., by moving more processing to the local IPC). See col. 8:19 thru col. 9:53).
In regard to claims 4, 14, Eberhardt discloses wherein the raw data comprises analytical spectrum data, and wherein the constituent operations comprise implementing one or more spectral analysis algorithms configured to input at least a portion of the raw data and to output the processed data, the processed data comprising compressed spectrum data and spectral analysis metadata (in Eberhardt, specifically addresses analytical spectrum data (e.g., from mass spectrometers) and spectral analysis algorithms that compress data and generate metadata. See col. 8:19 thru col. 9:53). Eberhardt teaches a comprehensive laboratory workflow management system that includes dynamic configuration updating and real-time workflow modification. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the specific implementations claimed in the dependent claims are routine optimizations or predictable variations of the base system disclosed in the teaching of Eberhardt.
In regard to claims 5, 15, Eberhardt discloses wherein modifying the segmented data process workflow comprises segmenting the data processing workflow to perform all of the data processing workflow at the instrument system (in Eberhardt, discloses the ability to shift the entire workflow (or major portions) to run locally on the instrument system/IPC when beneficial (See col. 8:19-9:53). Eberhardt teaches a comprehensive laboratory workflow management system that includes dynamic configuration updating and real-time workflow modification. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the specific implementations claimed in the dependent claims are routine optimizations or predictable variations of the base system disclosed in the teaching of Eberhardt.
In regard to claims 6, 16, Eberhardt discloses wherein determining the configuration of the instrument system comprises: generating a set of parameters describing components of the instrument system, the parameters describing hardware included in the instrument system being configured to process data or to transfer data between two or more components of the instrument system; determining a data processing latency for the instrument system using the set of parameters; determining a data transfer latency for the instrument system using the set of parameters; or determining a network latency between the client computing device and the instrument system (in Eberhardt, teaches generating configuration parameters for hardware components, determining processing latency, data transfer latency, and network latency. See col. 8:19-9:53). Eberhardt teaches a comprehensive laboratory workflow management system that includes dynamic configuration updating and real-time workflow modification. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the specific implementations claimed in the dependent claims are routine optimizations or predictable variations of the base system disclosed in the teaching of Eberhardt.
In regard to claims 7, 17, Eberhardt discloses wherein determining the data processing latency comprises querying a database storing data processing capacity information for hardware (in Eberhardt, discloses querying a database or lookup table for hardware capacity and latency information. See col. 9:33-54). Eberhardt teaches a comprehensive laboratory workflow management system that includes dynamic configuration updating and real-time workflow modification. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the specific implementations claimed in the dependent claims are routine optimizations or predictable variations of the base system disclosed in the teaching of Eberhardt.
In regard to claims 8, 18, Eberhardt in view of Jain discloses wherein determining the network latency comprises assessing a data transfer rate between the client computing device and the instrument system. Eberhardt does not explicitly quantify this as a "data transfer rate" assessment standing alone; Jain's disclosure of monitoring "network connectivity (e.g., latency, bandwidth, etc.)" between client and datacenter, including transmission latency as a function of object size/rate, supplies the missing evidentiary support (Jain, col. 1:41-42; col. 7:30-32). One of ordinary skill would have combined this teaching with Eberhardt for the same reasons set forth for claims 1 and 11.
In regard to claims 9, 19, Eberhardt in view of Jain discloses wherein generating the updated configuration of the instrument system comprises dynamically updating the configuration, and wherein modifying the segmented data process workflow comprises dynamically adjusting the data processing workflow. This limitation is addressed principally by Jain, which discloses that partitioning is re-evaluated and application components migrate between client and server dynamically, during execution, as operating and network conditions change (Jain, col. 12:56-59; col. 3:3-6). The rationale for combining Eberhardt and Jain set forth for claims 1 and 11 applies with equal force here; this combination replaces the prior Office action's reliance on an unsupported assertion of official notice.
In regard to claims 10, 20, Eberhardt discloses wherein the instrument system further comprises an application specific machine (ASM), operably coupled with the IPC and the client computing device, and wherein modifying the segmented data process workflow comprises reattributing at least a portion of the subset of constituent operations included in the data process workflow to the ASM (in Eberhardt, discloses application-specific modules/machines (ASM) or specialized processing module, operably coupled with the IPC and client device, and reattributing operations to them. The dedicated hardware module/units coupled to the instrument control system for performing specific operation, with dynamic reattribution of workflow tasks (col. 13:58 thru col. 14:6; col. 14:38-63; col. 16:9-17).
Examiner's note:
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, and paragraphs in the applied references for the convenience of the Applicant; other passages and figures of Eberhardt and Jain may apply as well, and Applicant is encouraged to consider the references in their entirety.
Response to Arguments
8. The rejection of claims 1-20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Eberhardt, is hereby WITHDRAWN. Upon reconsideration in light of the remarks submitted by Applicant on August 7, 2026, the Examiner finds that Eberhardt discloses a configuration of an instrument system including an analytical instrument coupled with an instrument PC (IPC) configured to receive raw data from the analytical instrument, process the raw data, and communicate with a client computing device; and segmenting a data process workflow based at least in part on the configuration, attributing at least a subset of constituent operations of the workflow to the client computing device or the IPC, but does not explicitly disclose generating an updated configuration of the instrument system, generating an updated latency parameter using the updated configuration, and modifying the segmented data process workflow using the updated latency parameter. Applicant's arguments are well-taken. The rejection is withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Jain.
Double Patenting: Claims 1-20 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of commonly owned U.S. Patent No. 12,333,344, for the reasons of record in the prior Office action, which are incorporated herein by reference.
Applicant's request that this rejection be held in abeyance is respectfully declined. The customary practice of holding a nonstatutory double patenting rejection in abeyance applies where the reference is a copending application and the ultimate rejection depends on which application issues first. Here, the reference (U.S. Patent No. 12,333,344) has already issued as a patent; there is no such contingency, and the rejection is ripe for resolution now. A terminal disclaimer filed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) is required to overcome this rejection. Absent such a terminal disclaimer, this rejection is maintained.
(Note: because this rejection was not amendment-responsive and no terminal disclaimer has been filed, it can be carried forward essentially verbatim; it does not by itself drive the final/non-final call on the action as a whole.)
Conclusion
9. All claims are rejected.
10.. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Raymond Phan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3630. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 6:30AM- 3:00PM. The Group Fax No. (571) 273-8300.
Communications via Internet e-mail regarding this application, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used by the applicant and should be addressed to [raymond.phan@uspto.gov].
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, Andrew Jung can be reached at (571) 270-3779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
All Internet e-mail communications will be made of record in the application file. PTO employees do not engage in Internet communications where there exists a possibility that sensitive information could be identified or exchanged unless the record includes a properly signed express waiver of the confidentiality requirements of 35 U.S.C. 122. This is more clearly set forth in the Interim Internet Usage Policy published in the Official Gazette of the Patent and Trademark on February 25, 1997 at 1195 OG 89.
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 hop://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).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC 2100 central telephone number is (571) 272-2100.
/RAYMOND N PHAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights