This office action is in response to the application filed on 12/13/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18, 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 19 is allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
extracting, by one or more processors, a first sequence of experiment activities from a digital artifact for a target experiment procedure;
extracting, by the one or more processors and from the collected environment data, a set of activity features;
identifying, by the one or more processors and from the extracted set of activity features, a set of target objects;
detecting, by the one or more processors and using a machine learning model, an experiment activity based at least in part on the collected environment data;
adding, by the one or more processors, the experiment activity to the second sequence of experiment activities;
detecting, by the one or more processors, an anomalous deviation from the first sequence of experiment activities based at least in part on the second sequence of experimental activities;
These limitations, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes collecting data, analyzing data, comparing results, which is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, Additional elements “an experimentation anomaly detection service, one or more processors, a machine-learning model and sensors used to collect environment data” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
“The one or more processors and anomaly detection service are recited at a high level of generality and perform generic computer functions. The step of collecting environment data via sensors is merely data gathering and is insignificant extra-solution activity because claim does not recite any particular sensor, configuration or improvement to sensing.
The machine learning model is recited in functional terms without specifying any particular architecture or technical improvement.
Thus, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, Additional elements “an experimentation anomaly detection service, one or more processors, a machine-learning model and sensors used to collect environment data”, are recited at a high level of generality and perform their ordinary functions of collecting , analyzing and outputting data.
The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2-18 do not cure the deficiencies and are rejected for the same rationale as in claim 1.
As to claim 20:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
extracting, by one or more processors, a first sequence of experiment activities from a digital artifact for a target experiment procedure;
extracting, by the one or more processors and from the collected environment data, a set of activity features;
identifying, by the one or more processors and from the extracted set of activity features, a set of target objects;
detecting, by the one or more processors and using a machine learning model, an experiment activity based at least in part on the collected environment data;
adding, by the one or more processors, the experiment activity to the second sequence of experiment activities;
detecting, by the one or more processors, an anomalous deviation from the first sequence of experiment activities based at least in part on the second sequence of experimental activities;
These limitations, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes collecting data, analyzing data, comparing results, which is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, Additional elements “an experimentation anomaly detection service, one or more processors, a machine-learning model and sensors used to collect environment data” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
“The one or more processors and anomaly detection service are recited at a high level of generality and perform generic computer functions. The step of collecting environment data via sensors is merely data gathering and is insignificant extra-solution activity because claim does not recite any particular sensor, configuration or improvement to sensing.
The machine learning model is recited in functional terms without specifying any particular architecture or technical improvement.
Thus, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, Additional elements “an experimentation anomaly detection service, one or more processors, a machine-learning model and sensors used to collect environment data”, are recited at a high level of generality and perform their ordinary functions of collecting , analyzing and outputting data.
The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The elements of independent Claims 1 and 20 were neither found through a search of the prior art nor considered obvious by the Examiner.
In particular, the closest prior art Polly (US 2019/0331701) teaches
monitoring an environment and performing analysis of the samples collected by personnel, receiving results of the monitoring analysis and automatically generating alert (Fig. 7B, 8, 9, 10, abstract).
Prior art of record does not teach or suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations and in context of their claims as a whole as described below:
extracting an experiment-specific ordered activity sequence from a digital artifact for a target experiment procedure, where the digital artifact defines the ordered experiment activities;
constructing the second sequence of experiment activities by:
collecting, by the one or more processors at each timepoint of a set of timepoints and via one or more sensors, environment data from an experimentation workspace;
extracting, by the one or more processors and from the collected environment data, a set of activity features;
identifying, by the one or more processors and from the extracted set of activity features, a set of target objects;
detecting, by the one or more processors and using a machine learning model, an experiment activity based at least in part on the collected environment data;
detecting an anomalous deviation from the first sequence of experiment activities based at least in part on the constructed second sequence of experimental activities;
Accordingly, the claimed combination of extracting experiment activity sequence, constructing a sensor derived execution sequence and detecting deviation based on comparison of those sequences is not shown or suggested by the prior-art and claims 1-18, 20 would be allowable.
The elements of independent Claims 19 were neither found through a search of the prior art nor considered obvious by the Examiner.
In particular, the closest prior art Holmes (US 2013/0078624) teaches
Laboratory test monitoring an environment ([0303], [0856]), fluid sample handling [0332], sample assay and detection (abstract, [0012], [0013]).
Prior art of record does not teach or suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations and in context of their claims as a whole as described below:
collecting, by one or more processors and at each timepoint of a set of timepoints and via one or more sensors, environment data from an experimentation workspace;
identifying, by the one or more processors and based at least in part on the environment data,
a first object and a second object, wherein: the first object comprises a arrangement of cavities configured to store one or more fluids; and the second object comprises a tip configured to distribute the one or more fluids among the arrangement of cavities;
detecting, a tip-associated error, wherein the tip-associated error comprises
a presence of a droplet within the tip of the second object,
the presence of the droplet on the tip of the second object,
the presence of bubbles within the one or more fluids within the tip,
the presence of a dust particle within the tip, a quantity of liquid within the tip that satisfies a threshold liquid quantity, or a combination thereof;
detecting that the tip is retreating from a cavity at the same timepoint at which the tip-associated error is present; and
generating a message indicating that the droplet is present within the tip of the second object based at least in part on detecting that the tip of the second object is retreating from the cavity over the same timepoint of the set of timepoints in which the tip-associated error is occurring, thereby enabling a removal of the droplet from the tip of the second object.
Accordingly, prior art does not teach or suggest detecting tip-associated error within a liquid-handling tip and simultaneously detect retreat of the tip from a cavity at the same timepoint. Claim 19 is therefore allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Manohar teaches automatically managing applications in environments using AI driven autonomic application management framework.
Kelly teaches system for compliance-based flex on demand in a multi-application programming interface (API) virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMINI PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3902. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday,6am-3:30pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashish Thomas can be reached on 571-272-0631. 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. Application/Control Number:
/KAMINI B PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114