DETAILED ACTION
Applicant' s response, filed 20 March 2026, has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 .
Claim Status
Claims 24, 27-31, 33, 34, 37-41, and 43-45 are pending and examined herein.
Claims 24, 27-31, 33, 34, 37-41, and 43-45 are rejected.
Claim 34 is objected to.
Priority
Claims 24, 27-31, 33, 34, 37-41, and 43-45 are not granted the claim to the benefit of priority to U.S. patent application 15/028190 which is a 371 of PCT/US2014/061730 filed 22 October 2014 which claims the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional application 61/894380 filed 22 October 2013 because there is not disclosure of “assigning points, which range from positive to negative points, respectively to different edges from a node indicating outcomes of the node” and “computing a value for each node being a sum of points associated with edges in a path from the root to the node”. Thus, the effective filling date of claims 24, 27-31, 33, 34, 37-41, and 43-45 is the date of the response which introduces these limitations of 20 March 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 34 recites “determine whether that the generated clinical significance score…” but should read “determine whether the generated clinical significance score…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 24 recites “the identifying being performed for only a subset of the database of genetic variant variants to reduce testing and expedite therapeutic efforts”. The method of claim 24 is practiced with a single variant (which is from a database of genetic variants) which is a subset of the database. Therefore, this limitation is descriptive to the method of claim 24 which is already confined to analyzing a single variant from a database of variants.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection on the ground of 112/a (new matter) of claims 24, 27-31, 33, and 44 for reciting “identifying, in response to the determining, one or more pharmaceutical agents via clinical testing to target the genetic as a potential therapeutic target” in Office action mailed 23 December 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendment which removes “via clinical testing” received 20 March 2026.
The rejection on the ground of 112/b of claims 24, 27-31, 33, and 44 for reciting “identifying, in response to the determining…” in Office action mailed 23 December 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendment which provides only one determining step and makes clear what this identifying step is responsive to received 20 March 2026.
The rejection on the ground of 112/b of claims 34, 37-41, 43, and 45 for reciting “wherein…the system generates a report…” in Office action mailed 23 December 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendment “generate a report of the clinical significance of the genetic variant based on the determining” received 20 March 2026.
112/a New Matter
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The rejection below is newly recited necessitated by amendment.
Claims 24, 27-31, 33, 34, 37-41, and 43-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 24 and claim 34 recite “assigning points, which range from positive to negative points, respectively to different edges from a node indicating outcomes of the node” and “computing a value for each node being a sum of points associated with edges in a path from the root to the node”. The instant disclosure provides that aggregating includes inputting scores into a decision tree (instant disclosure [0004] and [0031]) and the instant disclosure provides Fig. 1 - Fig. 3 which are structures of trees used for aggregating the inputted scores. The instant disclosure does not provide an adequate written description of assigning points, which range from positive to negative points, respectively to different edges from a node indicating outcomes of the node. In Fig. 1 there are positive and negative points however these points do not appear to be associated to respective different edges from a node. Further, in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 the edges are assigned “yes”, “no”, “high”, “moderate”, “low or none”, “moderate or unclear”, “2 or more” (which do not appear to be points assigned but reflecting a range of the number of critical domains), and “0 or 1” (which do not appear to be points assigned but reflecting a range of the number of critical domains). Further, the instant disclosure does not provide an adequate written description of computing a value for each node being a sum of points associated with edges in a path from the root to the node because there is no description of summing up points associated with edges and Fig. 1 - Fig. 3 does not show how the scores at each level are determined from the associated edges which are assigned “yes”, “no”, “high”, “moderate”, “low or none”, “moderate or unclear”, “2 or more” (which do not appear to be points assigned but reflecting a range of the number of critical domains), and “0 or 1” (which do not appear to be points assigned but reflecting a range of the number of critical domains). Thus, “assigning points, which range from positive to negative points, respectively to different edges from a node indicating outcomes of the node” and “computing a value for each node being a sum of points associated with edges in a path from the root to the node” constitute as new matter. Dependent claims 27-31, 33, 37-41, and 43-45 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected claim without alleviating the rejection.
112/b
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The rejections below is newly recited necessitated by amendment.
Claims 24, 27-31, 33, 34, 37-41, and 43-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 24 and 34 recite “computing a value for each node being a sum of points associated with edges…” which renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. The indefiniteness arises because the claims do not set out multiple nodes so it is unclear what constitutes as “computing a value for each node”. Dependent claims 27-31, 33, 37-41, and 43-45 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected claim without alleviating the indefiniteness. For the sake of furthering examination, this limitation will be interpreted as computing a value for the node being the sum of points associated with edges…”.
Claim 24 recites “the genetic variant” and “the variant” in lines 22, 23, 26, and 31 of the claim and recites “the plurality of scores” in lines 21 and 30 of the claim, claim 27 recites “the plurality of scores” in line 2 of the claim, Claim 33 recites “the variant”, claim 34 recites “the genetic variant” and “the variant” in lines 26, 27, 29, 32, 33, 34, and 41 of the claim and recites “the plurality of scores” in lines 25 and 40 of the claim, claim 37 recites “the plurality of scores” in line 2 of the claim, claim 43 recites “the variant” in line 3 of the claim, claim 44 recites “the plurality of scores” in line 1 of the claim and recites “the variant” in lines 4, 5, and 6 of the claim, and claim 45 recites “the plurality of scores in line 1 of the claim and recites “the variant” in lines 4, 5, and 6 of the claim which renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. The indefiniteness arises because it is unclear which “genetic variant” (also “variant”) is being referred to in the “each genetic variant of a database of genetic variants” and it is further unclear which set of the “plurality of scores” is being referred to in the “plurality of scores associated with each genetic variant of a database”. Dependent claims 27-31 and 38-41 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected claim without alleviating the indefiniteness. For the sake of furthering examination, the claims are interpreted as being practiced with a single genetic variant with a plurality of scores.
Claims 27 and 37 recite “the internal node” which renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. The indefiniteness arises because the claim does not make clear what “the internal node” is. This rejection could be overcome by amendment of this limitation to “an internal node” in claim 27 and 37. Dependent claims 28 and 38 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected claim without alleviating the indefiniteness. For the sake of furthering examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “an internal node” (in claims 27 and 37) and “the internal node” (in claims 28 and 38) are interpreted as to referring to “an internal node” in claims 27 and 37.
Claims 27-29 and 37-39 recite “the decision tree” which renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. The indefiniteness arises because it is unclear which “tree” of the at least one tree “the decision tree” is referring to. For the sake of further examination this limitation will be interpreted as “one tree of the at least one tree”.
Claim 34 recites “generate a report of the clinical significance of the genetic variant based on the determining”, “wherein…the system generates a report…”, and “wherein the generating the report…” which renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. The indefiniteness arises because it is unclear if the “report” (in step (v)) and the “report” in the subsequent wherein clause are the meant to be the same report or different reports. If these reports are meant to be different reports it is further unclear which report the “report” in “wherein the generating the report is performed…” is referring to. Dependent claims 37-41, 43, and 45 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected claim without alleviating the indefiniteness. For the sake of furthering examination, the recited reports will be interpreted as being the same report.
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.
The rejection below has been modified necessitated by amendment.
Claims 24, 27-31, 33, 34, 37-41, and 43-45 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 24, 27-31, 33, and 44 fall under the statutory category of a process and claims 34, 37-41, 43, and 45 fall under the statutory category of a machine.
(Step 2A prong 1)
Under the BRI, the instant claims recite judicial exceptions that are an abstract idea of the type that is in the grouping of a “mental process”, such as procedures for evaluating, analyzing or organizing information, and forming judgement or an opinion. The instant claims further recite judicial exceptions that are an abstract idea of the type that is in the grouping of a “mathematical concept”, such as mathematical relationships and mathematical equations.
Independent claim 24 recites a mental process of “building at least one tree depending on at least whether a genetic variant changes…”, “including leaves corresponding to different levels of clinical significance”, “assigning points, which range from positive to negative points, respectively to different edges from a node indicating outcomes of the node”, “assigning a value to a root”, “aggregating the plurality of scores to generate a clinical significance score indicating a clinical significance of the genetic variant”, “determining whether the generated clinical significance score for the variant is above, below, or equal to a threshold”, “identifying, in response to determining, one or more pharmaceutical agents to target the genetic variant as a potential therapeutic target, the identifying being performed for only a subset of the database…”, and “traversing one tree of the at least one tree to reach a leaf using the plurality of scores and taking the value of the leaf as the clinical significance score for the genetic variant”
Independent claim 34 recites a mental process of “build at least one tree depending on at least whether a genetic variant changes…”, “including leaves corresponding to different levels of clinical significance”, “assigning points, which range from positive to negative points, respectively to different edges from a node indicating outcomes of the node”, “assigning a value to a root”, “aggregate the plurality of scores to generate a clinical significance score indicating a clinical significance of the genetic variant”, “determine whether the generated clinical significance score for the variant is above, below, or equal to a threshold”, “generate a report of the clinical significance of the genetic variant based on the determining “traversing one tree of the at least one tree to reach a leaf using the plurality of scores and taking the value of the leaf as the clinical significance score for the genetic variant”
Independent claims 24 and 34 recite mathematical concepts of “computing a value for each node being a sum of points associated with edges in a path from the root to the node” and “computing a plurality of scores associated with each genetic variant of a database of genetic variants using hypothesis testing for at least one score of the plurality of scores, wherein the plurality of scores comprises (a) a function score…”.
Dependent claims 30 and 40 recite a mental process of “aggregating a second plurality of scores to generate a second clinical significance score…”. Dependent claims 31 and 41 recite a mental process of “excluding a second variant from an output report, responsive to a generated clinical significance score of the second variant being below a threshold”.
The claims recite mental processes or analyzing/evaluating data and making a judgment based on the analysis of data as building at least one tree, including leaves corresponding to different levels of clinical significance, assigning points, which range from positive to negative points, respectively to different edges from a node, assigning a value to a root, aggregating the plurality of scores to generate a clinical significance score indicating a clinical significance of the genetic variant, comparing the generated clinical significance score for the variant to a threshold, identifying, in response to determining, one or more pharmaceutical agents to target the genetic variant as a potential therapeutic target, traversing one tree of the at least one tree to reach a leaf using the plurality of scores and taking the value of the leaf as the clinical significance score for the genetic variant, generate a report of the clinical significance of the genetic variant based on the determining, aggregating a second plurality of scores to generate a second clinical significance score. The claims recite mental processes of organizing data as excluding a second variant from an output report, responsive to a generated clinical significance score of the second variant being below a threshold. The human mind is capable of performing these steps because the building at least one tree is a series of abstract steps for analyzing genetic data in a specified manner, comparing a combined score to a threshold to see if the score is below, equal to, or above a threshold is a judgment, identifying a pharmaceutical that targets a specific genetic variant, generating a report containing a score and a recommendation are mental processes of a judgment, and traversing abstract analysis to produce an aggregated score is a mental process of analyzing/evaluating data.
The claims recite mathematical concepts of a mathematical calculations as computing a value for each node being a sum of points associated with edges in a path from the root to the node is a mathematical operation of summing numerical values and computing a plurality of scores associated with each genetic variant of a database of genetic variants using hypothesis testing which is a series of mathematical calculations to produce a numerical value representing whether observed patterns are true or if the observed patterns are due to chance.
Dependent claims 27-29, 37-39, 44, and 45 further limit the mental process/mathematical concept recited in the independent claim but do not change their nature as a mental process/mathematical concept. Thus, 24, 27-31, 33, 34, 37-41, and 43-45 recite abstract ideas.
(Step 2A Prong 2)
Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). Integration into a practical application is evaluated by identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
The additional element in claims 24 and 34 of using a generic computer does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because this is applying the exception to a generic computer without improvement to computer technology (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)). This additional element and the judicial exceptions only interact by using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exceptions.
The additional element in claims 33 and 43 of receiving data does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because this is insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). This additional element and the judicial exceptions only interact by providing data to be processed by the judicial exceptions.
Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application and claims 24, 27-31, 33, 34, 37-41, and 43-45 are directed to the abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
The additional element in claims 24 and 34 of using a generic computer to perform judicial exceptions is conventional as shown by MPEP 2106.05(b) and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The additional element in claims 33 and 43 of receiving data into a computer environment is conventional as shown by MPEP 2106.05(b) and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Thus, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are conventional.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1:
Applicant states claim 1 in example 40 recites limiting performance of specific tasks (collecting additional data over the network) to when the collected data meets a certain condition (abnormality), to avoid excessive consumption of resources (network bandwidth). Applicant argues that the present claims similarly recite limiting performance of specific tasks (recommending biological testing) to when the collected data meets a certain condition (showing high clinical significance), to avoid excessive consumption of resources (lab facility) (Reply p. 10). Applicant argues that the additional elements here include the combination of data and computation that enables accurate determination of whether the certain condition is met (Reply p 10).
These arguments have been fully considered but found to be not persuasive. It is noted that claim 24 (or it’s dependents) does not recite “recommending biological testing”. Further, the combination of data and computation that enables accurate determination of whether the certain condition is met in the instant claims are not “additional elements” because the computations are a series of abstract ideas performed to analyze abstract data and fall under the judicial exceptions themselves. Thus, enabling accurate determination whether the certain condition is met in the instant application is enabling accurate abstract data analysis which falls under the judicial exception is an improvement in provided by the judicial exceptions alone which cannot provide the improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Claim 34 recites “the system generates a report containing a recommendation that an individual identified as having the variant or immediate blood relative…”. The human mind is capable of generating “a report containing a recommendation that an individual identified as having the variant…” and falls under the mental process grouping of making a judgment. It is noted that having the system (which is a generic computer) generate this report is using a generic computer as a tool to perform a mental process. The recited claims do not provide any operations the computer takes to generate a report but merely claims the abstract concept of generating a report being applied on a computer which amounts to using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The argued “specific task” which is limited in the instant claims is an abstract idea. In contrast to the instant claims, the “specific task” which is limited in claim 1 of example 40 is an “additional element” of a computer collecting specific traffic data (NetFlow protocol data). A computer collecting traffic data is a computer process of receiving data and is not an abstract idea. Further in contrast to the instant claims, the improvement in claim 1 in example 40, is provided by the combination of the judicial exception (i.e., comparing at least one of the collected traffic data to a predefined threshold) and the additional element (i.e., the computer process of the computer receiving additional traffic data when the collected traffic data is greater than the predefined threshold) (see MPEP 2106.05(a) which states the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception). Thus, the instant claims are not analogous claim 1 of example 40 and are not similarly patent eligible with the fact pattern presented claim 1 of example 40.
Argument 2:
Applicant argues on the other hand, CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020), provides another reason why the present claims are eligible. While the claims in that case were directed to a device, it was the computer-implemented "logic" (steps to be performed) recited in the claims that render the claims eligible. The court found such logic to correspond to different ways of improving the quality of assessment of the signals (beats and variability thereof) and ultimately the quality of the final output (an alert to an anomalous condition) (Reply p. 10).
This argument has been fully considered but found to not be persuasive. The claims at issue in CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (herein after CardioNet) have a different fact pattern than the instant application. The court states that “When read as a whole, and in light of the written description, we conclude that claim 1 of the '207 patent is directed to an improved cardiac monitoring device and not to an abstract idea. In particular, the language of claim 1 indicates that it is directed to a device that detects beat-to-beat timing of cardiac activity, detects premature ventricular beats, and determines the relevance of the beat-to-beat timing to atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, taking into account the variability in the beat-to-beat timing caused by premature ventricular beats identified by the device's ventricular beat detector. In our view, the claims "focus on a specific means or method that improves" cardiac monitoring technology; they are not "directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery." In contrast to the instant claims which invoke generic machinery (i.e., a general-purpose computer) to perform abstract ideas, the claims at issue in CardioNet are directed to a particular device (i.e., a cardiac monitoring device with a beat detector, ventricular beat detector, variability determination logic, relevance determination logic, and an event generator) which itself is improved by the implementation of the abstract idea which is the combination of the additional element of the cardiac monitoring device and the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(a) which states the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception). It is noted, the logic identified as an abstract idea in isolation was not the reason the claims were found to be patent eligible but rather the result or effect that the abstract idea had on the cardiac monitoring device itself (i.e., capable of better detection).
The court states “In our view, the claims "focus on a specific means or method that improves" cardiac monitoring technology; they are not "directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery” which shows the claims in CardioNet were indicated to be patent eligible because they are not directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea (such as improved abstract analysis which results in an improved abstract solution/prediction which merely invokes generic processes or machinery) but rather are directed to the combination of an abstract idea and the cardiac monitoring device in which the result or effect is an improvement in the cardiac monitoring device itself. In contrast to the fact pattern present in CardioNet, the instant claims are directed to an improved result or effect which is itself an abstract idea (i.e., making predictions about genetic variants by performing abstract ideas on abstract data to filter out genetic variants before performing additional abstract ideas on abstract data of identifying a pharmaceutical agent that targets a variant/generating a report on a variant identified by the abstract data analysis as clinically significant) which invokes generic machinery as a tool (i.e., a generic computer). Thus, the instant claims are not analogous to the claims at issue in CardioNet and are not similarly patent eligible with the fact pattern presented in CardioNet.
Argument 3:
Applicant argues that the present claims are analogous to the claims in CardioNet. The court states that the claims in CardioNet "focus on a specific means or method that improves" cardiac monitoring technology. The present claims also focus on a specific means or method that improves genetic monitoring technology (Reply p. 10-11). Applicant argues the court states that the claims enable a computer to "more accurately [detect] the occurrence of [relevant abnormal conditions]", such as atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter, based on generated signals. The present claims also enable a computer to more accurately detect the occurrence of relevant abnormal conditions, such as high clinical significance concerning diseases, based on the collected genetic sequences (Reply p. 10-11). Applicant argues the court states that the claimed logic enables "report[ing] few false negatives and false positives when used to detect [relevant abnormal conditions], such as atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter, that would require medical attention. The present claimed method precisely increases the validity of recommending further medical testing Reply p. 11).
These arguments have been fully considered but found to be not persuasive. The claims at issue CardioNet have a different fact pattern than the instant application. The claims at issue in CardioNet improved cardiac monitoring technology by improving a cardiac monitoring device (i.e., not a general-purpose computer) through the combination of an abstract idea and the cardiac monitoring device itself (i.e., the logic enables the cardiac monitoring device itself to function in an improved manner). In contrast to the claims in CardioNet, the instant application only invokes generic machinery (i.e., a general-purpose computer) to perform a series of abstract ideas on abstract genetic data to provide a result or effect (i.e., identification of genetic variant data that is predicted to be clinically significant/generating a report containing a recommendation for further testing) that is itself an abstract idea. Thus, the instant claims are not analogous to the claims at issue in CardioNet and are not similarly patent eligible with the fact pattern presented in CardioNet.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection on the ground of 103 claims 24, 27-31, 33, and 44 as being unpatentable over Karbassi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,762,981; previously cited) in view of Tsimberidou et al. (JCO Precis Oncol. 2017; previously cited) in view of Ali, Jehad, et al. (International Journal of Computer Science Issues (IJCSI) 9.5 (2012): 272; previously cited) in Office action mailed 23 December 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendment of “assigning points, which range from positive to negative points, respectively to different edges from a node indicating outcomes of the node” and “computing a value for each node being a sum of points associated with edges in a path from the root to the node” received 20 March 2026.
Double Patenting
The rejection on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting of claims 24, 27-31, 33, and 44 as being unpatentable over claims 25-28 of copending Application No. 19022034 in view of Tsimberidou et al. (JCO Precis Oncol. 2017; previously cited) in view of Ali et al. (International Journal of Computer Science Issues (IJCSI) 9.5 (2012): 272; previously cited) in Office action mailed 23 December 2025 is withdrawn in view of the Terminal Disclaimer received 20 March 2026.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Claims 24, 27-31, 33, 34, 37-41, and 43-45 are free of the prior art of record. Karbassi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,762,981; previously cited) is the closest prior art of record for showing aggregating the claimed scores into a clinical significance using a decision tree and identifying a pharmaceutical agent/generating a report in response to a clinical significance score above a threshold. However, Karbassi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,762,981; previously cited) does not show assigning points, which range from positive to negative points, respectively to different edges from a node indicating outcomes of the node and computing a value for each node being a sum of points associated with edges in a path from the root to the node. Thus, the claims are free of the prior art of record.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN EDWARD HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-6165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Olivia Wise can be reached at 571-272-2249. 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.
/J.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1685
/KAITLYN L MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights