DETAILED ACTION
Summary
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 a first Office Action on the merits.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 03/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-12 and 14-17 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 9, 14 and 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, lines 1-2, please amend “based determining” to recite “based on determining”;
In claim 14, lines 1-2, please amend “based determining” to recite “based on determining”;
In claim 14, line 11, please amend “comprised within an analytical system” to recite “comprised within the analytical system”;
In claim 16, line 2, please amend “when executed by processor” to recite “when executed by a processor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by MONNARD, US 2022/0334141.
Re claim 1:
MONNARD teaches a computer implemented method for analytical sample container classification, the computer implemented method comprising:
Obtaining a digital representation of a visual identifier associated with a sample container (i.e., images of identification tag 9 on sample tube 5 are detected by classification reader device 7 [0049] [0050]);
Identifying at least one apparatus comprised within an analytical system, wherein the analytical system is configured to perform at least one analytical test using the sample container, and wherein the at least one apparatus comprises an optical identifier reader (i.e., classification module 8 of classification device 2 identifies one or more laboratory device 4 which will be involved in processing or handling the sample tube [0051]);
Classifying the sample container associated with the visual identifier by determining an ability of at least one of the optical identifier reader or a camera of the at least one apparatus comprised in the analytical system to: decode the visual identifier associated with the sample container, and generate a classification result characterizing the sample container associated with the visual identifier, and outputting a message defining the classification result (i.e., sample tube 5 is classified based on classifying module 8 analyzing tag data read by the classification reader device, wherein the result of the classification signals whether the sample tube is accepted for further processing by identified laboratory devices or rejected for relabeling [0052] [0055] [0057]).
Re claim 14:
MONNARD teaches a system, comprising:
An apparatus comprising at least one of an optical identifier reader or a camera configured to obtain a digital representation of a visual identifier associated with a sample container (i.e., classification device 2 comprises a classification reader device 7 [Figure 1]);
An analytical system comprising at least one apparatus configured to perform at least one analytical test (i.e., automated laboratory system 1 includes a plurality of laboratory devices configured to process a sample tube 5 containing a sample 6 for at least one or pre-analytics and sample analysis [0041] [Figure 1]);
A communications network [0043]; and
A data processing agent that is communicably coupled to the apparatus and the analytical system via the communications network (i.e., classifying module 8 [Figure 1]), wherein:
The data processing agent is configured to obtain a digital representation of a visual identifier associated with a sample container and to identify at least one apparatus comprised within the analytical system (i.e., classifying module 8 identifies whether one or more laboratory device tag readers will be able to read the identification tag based on image data detected by classifying reader device 7 [0049] [0050]),
The analytical system is configured to perform at least one analytical test using the sample container [0041];
The at least one apparatus comprising an optical identifier reader (i.e., tag reader device 10 [Figure 1]), and
The data processing agent is further configured to classify the visual identifier associated with the sample container by characterizing an ability of the optical identifier reader of the at least one apparatus comprised in the analytical system to: decode the visual identifier associated with the sample container, and generate a classification result characterizing the sample container associated with the visual identifier (i.e., sample tube 5 is classified based on classifying module 8 analyzing tag data read by the classification reader device, wherein the result of the classification signals whether the sample tube is accepted for further processing by identified laboratory devices or rejected for relabeling [0052] [0055] [0057]).
Re claim 17:
MONNARD teaches an apparatus, comprising:
A communications interface [0043];
A processor [0043]; and
A memory interface [0043],
Wherein the processor is configured to host a data processing agent communicably coupled to analytical system via a communications network [0043],
Wherein the data processing agent is configured to obtain a digital representation of a visual identification associated with a sample container and to identify at least one apparatus comprised within the analytical system, wherein the analytical system configured to perform at least one analytical test using the sample container (i.e., classification module 8 of classification device 2 identifies one or more laboratory device which will be involved in processing or handling the sample tube [0031] [0051]); and
Wherein the data processing agent is further configured to:
Classifying the sample container associated with the visual identifier by determining an ability of at least one of the optical identifier reader or a camera of the at least one apparatus comprised in the analytical system to: decode the visual identifier associated with the sample container, and generate a classification result characterizing the sample container associated with the visual identifier and outputting a message defining the classification result (i.e., sample tube 5 is classified based on classifying module 8 analyzing tag data read by the classification reader device, wherein the result of the classification signals whether the sample tube is accepted for further processing by identified laboratory devices or rejected for relabeling [0052] [0055] [0057]).
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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MONNARD, US 2022/0334141.
Re claim 16:
MONNARD teaches a computer implemented method for analytical sample container classification, the computer implemented method comprising:
Obtaining a digital representation of a visual identifier associated with a sample container (i.e., images of identification tag 9 on sample tube 5 are detected by classification reader device 7 [0049] [0050]);
Identifying at least one apparatus comprised within an analytical system, wherein the analytical system is configured to perform at least one analytical test using the sample container, and wherein the at least one apparatus comprises an optical identifier reader (i.e., classification device 2 identifies one or more laboratory device 4 which will be involved in processing or handling the sample tube [0051]);
Classifying the sample container associated with the visual identifier by determining an ability of at least one of the optical identifier reader or a camera of the at least one apparatus comprised in the analytical system to: decode the visual identifier associated with the sample container, and generate a classification result characterizing the sample container associated with the visual identifier, and outputting a message defining the classification result (i.e., sample tube 5 is classified based on classifying module 8 analyzing tag data read by the classification reader device, wherein the result of the classification signals whether the sample tube is accepted for further processing by identified laboratory devices or rejected for relabeling [0052] [0055] [0057]).
While MONNARD does not explicitly detail a non-transitory computer program element comprising machine readable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the steps enumerated above, it is well understood and routine in the art to utilize processors to execute instructions stored on non-transitory computer storage media to facilitate execution of computerized processes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-12 and 15 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA A GUDORF whose telephone number is (571)270-7607. If the Examiner cannot be reached by telephone, she can be reached through the following e-mail address: laura.gudorf@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 6:00-4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Lee, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-2398. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/LAURA A GUDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876