Automated tissue assay using standardized chemicals and packages

• US 6,594,537 B1
• Filed: 04/28/1998
• Issued: 07/15/2003
• Est. Priority Date: 08/05/1991
• Status: Expired due to Fees

• Current Assignee: Ventana Medical Systems Incorporated (Roche Holding AG)
• Original Assignee: Ventana Medical Systems Incorporated (Roche Holding AG)
• Inventors: Erickson, Page A., Barker, Stephen, Bernstein, Steven A.
• Primary Examiner(s): Picard, Leo
• Assistant Examiner(s): RODRIGUEZ, PAUL L
• Application Number:
  US09/067,719
• Time in Patent Office: 1,904 Days
• Field of Search: 700/245, 700/246, 700/247, 700/253, 700/257, 700/11, 700/100, 700/101
• US Class Current: 700/100
• CPC Class Codes: B25J 9/1671 characterised by simulation, either to verify existing program or to create and verify new program, CAD/CAM oriented, graphic oriented programming systems
• CPC Class Codes: B25J 9/1679 characterised by the tasks executed
• CPC Class Codes: G01N 1/312 for samples mounted on planar substrates
• CPC Class Codes: G01N 2035/0093 random access not determined by physical position
• CPC Class Codes: G01N 2035/1093 Cylindrical, e.g. variable radius and angle
• CPC Class Codes: G01N 35/0092 Scheduling
• CPC Class Codes: G01N 35/0099 comprising robots or similar manipulators robots per se B25J
• CPC Class Codes: G05B 2219/40097 Select stations with mouse to create process steps
• CPC Class Codes: G05B 2219/40098 Show grid locations with symbols of workstations
• CPC Class Codes: G05B 2219/40099 Graphical user interface for robotics, visual robot user interface
• CPC Class Codes: G05B 2219/40108 Generating possible sequence of steps as function of timing and conflicts
• CPC Class Codes: G05B 2219/40113 Task planning
• CPC Class Codes: G05B 2219/40463 Shortest distance in time, or metric, time optimal
• CPC Class Codes: G05B 2219/45092 Analysing or chemical synthesis robot, moving samples from station to station
• CPC Class Codes: G05B 2219/45118 Endoscopic, laparoscopic manipulator
• CPC Class Codes: Y10T 436/11 Automated chemical analysis
• CPC Class Codes: Y10T 436/115831 Condition or time responsive

Abstract

A system which performs a plurality of independent analysis procedures simultaneously, possibly involving differing types of tissues and differing process steps, comprising a robotic arm, which may move the different tissue samples among the plurality of processing stations, and a processor, which may select the order, timing and location of the tissue sample. The robotic device may comprise a bench robot with rectilinear motion or a rotatable tower. The processing stations may be disposed in a set of grid locations, which comprise workstations for performing individual steps of the procedures. In response to timing information about the procedures, the processor may select the sample to be moved. The processor may examine the multiple procedures for timing conflicts and it may adjust the sequence of steps for the procedures, the timing of steps with a specified range of times, or the order of the samples in order to avoid conflicts and to minimize the total time required by the system to complete the procedures. The operator may create or edit templates for workstations, create or edit lists of process steps for procedures, monitor the progress of ongoing procedures, or override the determination of what process steps to perform.

Claims

1. A method of subjecting at least two test samples to different tests, each test having steps, each of the steps having an assigned minimum and maximum processing time, said method comprising the steps of:

determining the steps for each of the at least two test samples;

comparing the steps for the at least two test samples to identify at least one time conflict;

adjusting a processing time of at least one of the steps within a range of the minimum and maximum processing time using an iterative optimization method in order to resolve each of the at least one time conflict;

determining an ordering of execution of the steps of the at least two test samples based on the adjustment of the processing time of the at least one of the steps; and

generating commands based on the ordering of execution of the steps.

2. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of determining the ordering of the execution of the steps includes delaying the execution of the steps for one of the at least two test samples.

3. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the minimum and maximum processing time are human user defined.

4. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one of the steps is a critical step and a remainder of the steps are non-critical steps, the critical step having its minimum and maximum processing times being equal,

wherein the step of adjusting the processing time comprises adjusting the processing time of at least one of non-critical steps within the range of the minimum and maximum processing time in order to resolve the at least one time conflict, and

wherein the step of determining an ordering of execution of the steps comprises determining an ordering of execution of the step of the at least two test samples based on the adjustment of the processing time of the non-critical steps.

5. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein comparing the steps for the at least two test samples to identify at least one time conflict comprises generating a possible ordering of the steps and examining if the steps are within the possible ordering of steps conflict.

6. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the steps have a start time,

further comprising the step of adjusting the start time of at least one of the steps in order to resolve the at least one time conflict;

and

wherein the determining an ordering of execution of the steps is based on the adjustment of the processing time and the adjustment of the start time.

7. The method as claimed in claim 6, wherein at least one of the steps has a range of a start time, and

wherein the adjusting the start time comprises adjusting the start time within the range of the start time in order to resolve the at least one time conflict.

8. The method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the adjusting the start time comprises delaying the start time of the at least one of the steps.

9. A method of subjecting at least two test samples to different tests, each test having a number of steps, at least one of the steps being a critical step and a remainder of the steps being non-critical steps, each of the non-critical steps having an assigned minimum and maximum processing time, the critical step having an exact fixed processing time, said method comprising the steps of:

determining steps for each of the at least two test samples;

comparing the steps fo the at least two test samples to determine time conflicts;

adjusting a processing time of at least one of the non-critical steps within a range of the minimum and maximum processing time using an iterative optimization method in order to resolve the time conflicts;

determining an ordering of execution of the steps of the at least two test samples based on the adjustment of the processing time of the non-critical steps; and

generating commands based on the ordering of execution of the steps.

10. The method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the minimum and maximum processing time are human user defined.

11. The method as claimed in claim 9, wherein comparing the steps for the at least two test samples to determine time conflicts comprises generating a possible ordering of the steps and examining if the steps are within the possible ordering of steps conflict.

12. The method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the steps have a start time,

further comprising the step of adjusting the start time of at least one of the steps in order to resolve the time conflicts; and

wherein the determining an ordering of execution of the steps is based on the adjustment of the processing time and the adjustment of the start time.

13. The method as claimed in claim 12, wherein at least one of the steps has a range of a start time, and

wherein the adjusting of the start time comprises adjusting the start time within the range of the start time in order to resolve the time conflicts.

14. The method as claimed in claim 12, wherein the adjusting of the start time comprises delaying the start time of the at least one of the steps.