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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 has been reviewed and are addressed below.
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 1-8 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.
Step 1:
Claims 1-8 are drawn system, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1, recite “a counting rule prepared specifically for said one customer”, “a site identification identifying a customer test site of said one customer and an instrument identification identifying the sample analyzing instrument installed in the customer test site identified by the site identification, and further wherein the counting rule classifies tests performable by the sample analyzing instrument into target types of tests and non-target types of tests both of which are uniquely identified for said one customer, wherein the test result report includes the customer identification the instrument identification, a sample identification identifying a sample tested by the sample analyzing instrument, a test result of the sample identified by the sample identification, and a control flag associated with the sample identified by the sample identification”, “wherein the test result includes a test type identification uniquely identifying each of at least one type of test performed on the sample and its test value”, “further wherein the control flag is set to indicate an occurrence of a particular test instance on the associated sample, and wherein the test report calculator is programmed to examine the control flag and the particular test instance indicated by the control frag, and interpret, under the counting rule, the particular test instance to determine whether the performed test qualifies to be counted or is excluded from counting, and further wherein the test report calculator is programmed to report a final count for billing in relation to said one customer.”
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed (e.g., the “computing device” language is incidental to what it is “configured” to perform). Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. That the abstract idea may be performed by specifically “a database being in data communication with the test report calculator, wherein the database is configured with a customer database uniquely assigned to one customer, wherein the customer database includes a customer identification identifying said one customer”, “sample analyzing instrument being in data communication with the test report calculator”, “test report calculator”, are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element recite “sending a test result report to the test report calculator”, which are nominal or tangential addition to the abstract idea and as such amounts to extra-solution activity. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept when the limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, 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.
Hence, the 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. Accordingly, 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, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion
-paragraph 29 recites, that “The instrument ID 304 may represent various analyzers 10 such as hematology analyzers, smear slide makers, urine analyzers, immunology analyzers, blood coagulation analyzers, or gene testing analyzers”.
-paragraph 59 recites “counter 203 may simply communicate, e.g., via the notifier 204, another computer system (such as an enterprise system) of the calculated count of the test reports corresponding to each instrument ID 304, each site ID 303, and/or each customer ID 301. Thereafter, the other computer system may be tasked with determining a final bill based on the count, the contract, and/or one or more other factor”
-paragraph 66 recites “The database 1110 may store information relating to the test order and the test result 309. The database 1110 may store information relating to the test result 309 sent from the analyzer 10. The database 1110 may store information relating to the test order sent from the LIS 12 or the cloud system”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element recite “sending a test result report to the test report calculator”, which are nominal or tangential addition to the abstract idea and as such amounts to extra-solution activity. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept when the limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-8 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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 R Merchant can be reached on (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.
REGINALD R. REYES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights