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 1-20 are pending and rejected in the application.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent 12,517,928. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are system and method claims for ingesting data and creating links between data and the patented claims are system and method claims and some of the instant limitations are included in the patented claims such that they are patentably indistinct. The patented claims further include creating concepts from the ingested but are otherwise of nearly identical scope despite any minor language differences. The instant claims scope as interpreted is the same for those limitations, or otherwise patentably indistinct. A comparison between the claims is shown below. The bolded language in the table below is identical to the language from U.S. Patent 12,517,928. As such, the instant claims would not be patentably distinct from the claims in U.S. Patent 12,517,928.
Current Application: 19/344,308
U.S. Patent 12,517,928
A computing system, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform: ingesting data within a data platform, the data comprising entities; instantiating a plurality of independently operating compute environments, wherein each of the independently operating compute environments corresponds to a particular data subset of the data, the instantiating comprising: configuring and allocating computing resources comprising data recording resources, storage resources, and analysis resources for each independently operating compute environment; ingesting a corresponding particular data subset into each independently operating compute environment; enforcing different access control policies for at least two different independently operating compute environments; orchestrating the independent compute environment to perform data recording, storage, and analysis; linking at least a first particular data subset with a second particular data subset; generating a protocol based on the linking of at least the first particular data subset and the second particular data subset; implementing the protocol, wherein the implementing of the protocol comprises one or more physical procedures to validate the linking of at least the first particular data subset and the second particular data subset.
1. A computing system, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform: ingesting data within a data platform, the data comprising entities; generating concepts associated with an entity subset of the entities, the concepts comprising relationships among the entity subset, wherein each concept is associated with a particular data subset of the data; instantiating a plurality of independently operating compute environments, wherein each of the independently operating compute environments corresponds to a particular generated concept, the instantiating comprising: configuring and allocating computing resources comprising data recording resources, storage resources, and analysis resources for each independently operating compute environment; ingesting a corresponding particular data subset, experiment parameters or protocols underlying the corresponding particular data subset, and applied particular reasoning corresponding to each particular generated concept into each independently operating compute environment; enforcing different access control policies for the corresponding particular data subset compared to the each particular generated concept; obtaining a modification to at least a particular generated concept corresponding to a particular independently operating compute environment; within the particularly independently operating compute environment, recording the modification to the particular concept, linking the modification to the particular concept by recording a chronological sequence of when and how the modification of the particular generated concept occurred, and linking the modification to the particular concept to a particular modification in the corresponding particular data subset, the applied particular reasoning, or the experiment parameters or protocols; orchestrating the independent compute environment to perform data recording, storage, and analysis; linking at least a concept subset of the generated concepts corresponding to each of the independently operating compute environments with one another and with the subset of the entities; inferring, based on the generated concepts, a potential concept or subconcept; determining a protocol comprising parameters and procedures to test the potential concept or subconcept; implementing the protocol, wherein the implementing of the protocol comprises one or more physical procedures to prepare instruments, samples, or subjects, and cleanup instructions or samples; and displaying, on an interface, one or more results in response to the implemented protocol.
A computer-implemented method of a computing system, comprising: ingesting data within a data platform, the data comprising entities; instantiating a plurality of independently operating compute environments, wherein each of the independently operating compute environments corresponds to a particular data subset of the data, the instantiating comprising: configuring and allocating computing resources comprising data recording resources, storage resources, and analysis resources for each independently operating compute environment; ingesting a corresponding particular data subset into each independently operating compute environment; enforcing different access control policies for at least two different independently operating compute environments; orchestrating the independent compute environment to perform data recording, storage, and analysis; linking at least a first particular data subset with a second particular data subset; generating a protocol based on the linking of at least the first particular data subset and the second particular data subset; and implementing the protocol, wherein the implementing of the protocol comprises one or more physical procedures to validate the linking of at least the first particular data subset and the second particular data subset.
11. A computer-implemented method of a computing system, comprising: ingesting data within a data platform, the data comprising entities; generating concepts associated with an entity subset of the entities, the concepts comprising relationships among the entity subset, wherein each concept is associated with a particular data subset of the data; instantiating a plurality of independently operating compute environments, wherein each of the independently operating compute environments corresponds to a particular generated concept, the instantiating comprising: configuring and allocating computing resources comprising data recording resources, storage resources, and analysis resources for each independently operating compute environment; ingesting a corresponding particular data subset, experiment parameters or protocols underlying the corresponding particular data subset, and applied particular reasoning corresponding to each particular generated concept into each independently operating compute environment; enforcing different access control policies for the corresponding particular data subset compared to the each particular generated concept; obtaining a modification to at least a particular generated concept corresponding to a particular independently operating compute environment; within the particularly independently operating compute environment, recording the modification to the particular concept, linking the modification to the particular concept by recording a chronological sequence of when and how the modification of the particular generated concept occurred, and linking the modification to the particular concept to a particular modification in the corresponding particular data subset, the applied particular reasoning, or the experiment parameters or protocols; orchestrating the independent compute environment to perform data recording, storage, and analysis; linking at least a concept subset of the generated concepts corresponding to each of the independently operating compute environments with one another and with the subset of the entities; inferring, based on the generated concepts, a potential concept or subconcept; determining a protocol comprising parameters and procedures to test the potential concept or subconcept; implementing the protocol, wherein the implementing of the protocol comprises one or more physical procedures to prepare instruments, samples, or subjects, and cleanup instructions or samples; and displaying, on an interface, one or more results in response to the implemented protocol.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-8 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iso-Sipila et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2022/0188520; hereinafter: Iso-Sipila) in view of Yoshikawa et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2021/0233605; hereinafter: Yoshikawa) and further in view of Guilliano et al. U.S. Patent (9,542,449; hereinafter: Guilliano) and further in view of Cohen-Solal et al. U.S. Patent (10,600,136; hereinafter: Cohen)
Claims 1 and 11
As to claims 1 and 11, Iso-Siplia discloses a computing system, comprising:
one or more processors(paragraph[0061]); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform(paragraph[0061])::
ingesting data within a data platform, the data comprising entities(paragraph[0096], the reference describes inputting (i.e., ingesting, as claimed) text or documents (i.e., data, as claimed) into a system.);
Iso-Siplia doesn’t appear to explicitly disclose
instantiating a plurality of independently operating compute environments, wherein each of the independently operating compute environments corresponds to a particular data subset of the data, the instantiating comprising:
configuring and allocating computing resources comprising data recording resources, storage resources, and analysis resources for each independently operating compute environment;
ingesting a corresponding particular data subset into each independently operating compute environment;
enforcing different access control policies for at least two different independently operating compute environments;
orchestrating the independent compute environment to perform data recording, storage, and analysis;
linking at least a first particular data subset with a second particular data subset;
generating a protocol based on the linking of at least the first particular data subset and the second particular data subset;
implementing the protocol, wherein the implementing of the protocol comprises one or more physical procedures to validate the linking of at least the first particular data subset and the second particular data subset.
However, Yoshikawa discloses instantiating a plurality of independently operating compute environments, wherein each of the independently operating compute environments corresponds to a particular data subset of the data, the instantiating comprising(paragraph[0149], the reference describes using individual different system to conduct each experimental protocol.):
configuring and allocating computing resources comprising data recording resources, storage resources, and analysis resources for each independently operating compute environment(paragraph[0149], the reference describes processing each experimental protocol to determine steps, samples, and tasks.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Iso-Siplia with the teachings of Yoshikawa to run experimental concepts in parallel which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Iso-Siplia with the teachings of Yoshikawa to quickly generate a complete set of instructions and parameters for executing an experiment leading to high predictability and reproducibility (Yoshikawa: paragraph[0006]).
The combination of Iso-Siplia and Yoshikawa do not appear to explicitly disclose ingesting a corresponding particular data subset into each independently operating compute environment;
enforcing different access control policies for at least two different independently operating compute environments;
orchestrating the independent compute environment to perform data recording, storage, and analysis;
linking at least a first particular data subset with a second particular data subset;
generating a protocol based on the linking of at least the first particular data subset and the second particular data subset;
implementing the protocol, wherein the implementing of the protocol comprises one or more physical procedures to validate the linking of at least the first particular data subset and the second particular data subset.
However, Guilliano discloses ingesting a corresponding particular data subset into each independently operating compute environment (Figure 18, column 4, lines 25-34, the reference describes gathering information from different databases.);
enforcing different access control policies for at least two different independently operating compute environments (Figure 18, column 4, lines 25-34, the reference describes access control rights.);
orchestrating the independent compute environment to perform data recording, storage, and analysis (Figure 1A, column 6, lines 1-15, the reference describes using a device to store and analyze data.);
linking at least a first particular data subset with a second particular data subset (column 3, lines 22-43, the reference describes linking concepts with sub-concepts (i.e., a second particular data subset, as claimed).). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Iso-Siplia with the teachings of Yoshikawa and Guilliano to link concepts with access rights which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Iso-Siplia with the teachings of Yoshikawa and Guilliano to efficiently generate and analyze data to generate specialized reports in any data analysis environments (Guilliano: lines 25-30).
The combination of Iso-Siplia, Yoshikawa, and Guilliano do not appear to explicitly disclose
generating a protocol based on the linking of at least the first particular data subset and the second particular data subset;
implementing the protocol, wherein the implementing of the protocol comprises one or more physical procedures to validate the linking of at least the first particular data subset and the second particular data subset.
However, Cohen discloses generating a protocol based on the linking of at least the first particular data subset and the second particular data subset (column 9, lines 46-61, the reference describes creating a protocol based on concept data.);
implementing the protocol, wherein the implementing of the protocol comprises one or more physical procedures to validate the linking of at least the first particular data subset and the second particular data subset (column 9, lines 46-61, the reference describes creating a protocol based on the concepts.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Iso-Siplia with the teachings of Yoshikawa, Guilliano, and Cohen to generate protocols based on concepts which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Iso-Siplia with the teachings of Yoshikawa, Guilliano, and Cohen to efficiently generate missing medical concepts to generate imaging procedures for a patient (Cohen: column 2, lines 6-15).
Claims 2 and 12
As to claims 2 and 12, the combination of Iso-Siplia, Yoshikawa, Guilliano, and Cohen discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Guilliano further disclose wherein the linking of at least the first particular data subset and the second particular data subset comprises generating a first concept corresponding to the first particular data subset and a second concept corresponding to the second particular data subset, the generated first concept and the generated second concept further comprising one or more qualifications applied to a subset of the entities or the relationships (Figure 18, column 8, lines 12-55, the reference describes generating concepts and sub-concepts.).
Claims 3 and 13
As to claims 3 and 13, the combination of Iso-Siplia, Yoshikawa, Guilliano, and Cohen discloses all the elements in claim 2, as noted above, and Guilliano further disclose wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform:
obtaining a modification to at least the first particular data subset corresponding to a first particular independent operating compute environment (column 17, lines 30-50, the reference describes editing the concepts.); and
within the first particular independently operating compute environment, recording the modification to the first particular data subset, recording a chronological sequence of the modification of the first particular data subset with respect to one or more other modifications of the particular data subset, and linking the modification to the first particular data subset (Figure 18, lines 40-61, the reference describes ranking and the edited concepts.).
Claims 4 and 14
As to claims 4 and 14, the combination of Iso-Siplia, Yoshikawa, Guilliano, and Cohen discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Cohen further disclose wherein the implementing of the protocol comprises calibrating or preparing one or more physical instruments prior to performing the one or more physical procedures (column 10, lines 52-60, the reference describes prepping an image scanner.).
Claims 5 and 15
As to claims 5 and 15, the combination of Iso-Siplia, Yoshikawa, Guilliano, and Cohen discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Yoshikawa further disclose wherein the implementing of the protocol comprises preparing one or more physical samples to be transformed during the one or more physical procedures (paragraph[0149], the reference describes processing each experimental protocol to determine steps, samples, and tasks.).
Claims 6 and 16
As to claims 6 and 16, the combination of Iso-Siplia, Yoshikawa, Guilliano, and Cohen discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Guilliano further disclose wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform:
ingesting a new first particular data subset into the first particular independent operating compute environment (column 12, lines 51-61, the reference describes uploading new data from sources.); and
modifying the generated first concept based on the ingested new first particular data subset, wherein modifying the generated first concept comprises qualifying the generated first concept (column 12, lines 51-61, the reference describes editing the concepts based on the user thinking. The Examiner interprets the user being able to think and implement modifying the modifying the generated first concept based on the ingested new first particular data subset.).
Claims 7 and 17
As to claims 7 and 17, the combination of Iso-Siplia, Yoshikawa, Guilliano, and Cohen discloses all the elements in claim 6, as noted above, and Guilliano further disclose wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform:
logging the generated first concept and the modification to the generated first concept (column 12, lines 51-61, the reference describes linking, editing, and storing the concepts in a database.);
logging the ingestion of the first particular data subset and the new first particular data subset(column 12, lines 51-62, the reference describes linking and storing the concepts in a database.);
linking the generated first concept with the first particular dataset(column 12, lines 51-61, the reference describes linking and storing the concepts in a database.); and
linking the modification of the generated first concept with the new first particular data subset(column 12, lines 51-61, the reference describes linking and storing the concepts in a database.).
Claims 8 and 18
As to claims 8 and 18, the combination of Iso-Siplia, Yoshikawa, Guilliano, and Cohen discloses all the elements in claim 7, as noted above, and Cohen further disclose wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform:
linking the modification of the generated first concept with an updated protocol, wherein the updated protocol comprises an updated preparation of a physical instrument or a physical sample prior to the physical procedures (column 10, lines 52-60, the reference describes gathering or adding concept data to determine the imaging prepping procedures.).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iso-Sipila et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2022/0188520; hereinafter: Iso-Sipila) in view of Yoshikawa et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2021/0233605; hereinafter: Yoshikawa) and further in view of Guilliano et al. U.S. Patent (9,542,449; hereinafter: Guilliano) and further in view of Cohen-Solal et al. U.S. Patent (10,600,136; hereinafter: Cohen) and further in view of Kahn et al. U.S. Patent (7,444,293; hereinafter: Kahn)
Claims 9 and 19
As to claims 9 and 19, the combination of Iso-Siplia, Yoshikawa, Guilliano, and Cohen discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein generating a protocol comprises:
identifying at least two existing protocols are associated with inconsistent validation results; and
updating the at least two existing protocols to generate a uniform protocol.
However, Kahn discloses identifying at least two existing protocols are associated with inconsistent validation results (column 15, lines 1-10, the reference describes the system discovering inconsistent data in a protocol.); and
updating the at least two existing protocols to generate a uniform protocol (column 17, the reference describes correcting the inconsistencies.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Iso-Siplia with the teachings of Yoshikawa, Guilliano, Cohen, and Kahn to discover protocol inconsistencies which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Iso-Siplia with the teachings of Yoshikawa, Guilliano, Cohen, and Kahn to efficiently reducing the risk of protocol inconsistencies and ambiguities that could lead to operational failures (Kahn: column 4, lines 15-25).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iso-Sipila et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2022/0188520; hereinafter: Iso-Sipila) in view of Yoshikawa et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2021/0233605; hereinafter: Yoshikawa) and further in view of Guilliano et al. U.S. Patent (9,542,449; hereinafter: Guilliano) and further in view of Cohen-Solal et al. U.S. Patent (10,600,136; hereinafter: Cohen) and further in view of Baeuerle et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2023/0310399; hereinafter: Baeuerle)
Claims 10 and 20
As to claims 10 and 20, the combination of Iso-Siplia, Yoshikawa, Guilliano, and Cohen discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform: generating audiovisual data of the protocol being executed.
However, Baeuerle discloses wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform: generating audiovisual data of the protocol being executed (paragraph[0063], the reference describes generating audiovisual data of a protocol.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Iso-Siplia with the teachings of Yoshikawa, Guilliano, Cohen, and Baeuerle to obtain audiovisual protocols which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Iso-Siplia with the teachings of Yoshikawa, Guilliano, Cohen, and Baeuerle to efficiently have an therapeutic system for treating or mitigating pain (Baeuerte: paragraph[0004]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAUNE A CONYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3552. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm EST. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann J. Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. 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.
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 February 24, 2024
Prosecution Insights