DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 are pending and under examination herein.
Claims 1-20 are objected to.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Priority
The instant claim does not claim the benefit of priority to another application. As such, the effective filing date assigned to each of claims 1-20 is 10/25/2021.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because:
they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 145 (para 0037), 190 (para 0039), and 22 (para 0047).
they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 300 (fig 3A), 400 (fig 4A), and 450 (fig 4B).
the descriptions for 222, 223 and 224 in the specification differ from the descriptions in fig 2 of the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends, as claim 8, on which claim 14 depends, already recites the limitation of claim 14 (i.e. each blood type is associated with blood group systems of ABO and Rh). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP § 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter (Step 1: YES) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1). In the instant application, the claims recite the following limitations that equate to an abstract idea:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite generating a first matrix of a plurality of dominant-recessive alleles pairs corresponding to the first parent and the second parent; generating a row vector, having relative weights associated with each blood type, based upon the first matrix; summing the row vector to generate a total value; dividing each element of the row vector by the total value to generate a resultant for each blood type; and multiplying each resultant by 100 to generate a probability rate for each corresponding blood type.
Claims 6, 13 and 19 recite retrieving elements from an associated blood donor matrix; applying each element to the first matrix; detecting blood donor matching for each blood type.
These recitations equate to steps of collecting information, analyzing data and making observations, evaluations and judgements that can be carried out in the human mind. Specifically, generating a matrix and a row vector, summing the row vector to generate a total value, dividing each element of the row vector by the total value to generate a resultant, multiplying the resultant by 100 to generate a probability rate, retrieving elements from a donor matrix, applying each element to the first matrix and detecting donor matching for each blood type can be practically performing the human mind as claimed, since the mind can read data and make mathematical estimations/comparisons as claimed and are similar to the concepts of collecting and comparing known information in Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and collecting information, analyzing it, and reporting certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, each of the above recited limitations fall under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the steps of generating a row vector, summing the row vector to generate a total value, dividing each element of the row vector by the total value to generate a resultant, and multiplying the resultant by 100 to generate a probability rate equate to organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations and reciting a mathematical equation, similar to the concepts of taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Therefore, these limitations fall under the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Claims 3-5, 10-13, 16-18 further qualify the recited judicial exceptions. As such, claims1-20 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
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). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite an additional element that reflects an improvement to technology, applies or uses the recited judicial exception to affect a particular treatment for a condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Rather, the instant claims recite additional elements that amount to mere data gathering and outputting and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. Specifically, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claims 1, 8 and 16 recite receiving user input of a first blood type associated with a first parent; receiving user input of a second blood type associated with a second parent, wherein the first blood type and second blood type each includes a dominant-recessive allele pair.
Claim 7, 8 and 14-15 recite wherein the first blood type and second blood type each are associated with blood group systems of ABO and Rh
Claims 2 and 9 recite wherein receiving the user input comprises, prompting the user for input associated with the first parent relating to a first blood type having a dominant-recessive allele pair; prompting the user for input associated with the second parent relating to a first blood type having a dominant-recessive allele pair; and storing the input in a register.
Claims 6 and 19 recite displaying the probability rate for each corresponding blood type and the blood donor matching for each blood type.
Claim 8 also recites a memory; and a processor.
Claim 15 also recites non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Claim 20 recites displaying the probability rate for each corresponding blood type.
Claims 8 and 15 merely recites using a generic computing systems and computer program products to carry out instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. There are no limitations that indicate that the claimed steps require anything other than generic computing systems. As such, these limitations equate to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer that the courts have stated does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. Furthermore. the instant specification discloses that "Unless specifically stated otherwise, as apparent from the following discussion, it is appreciated that throughout the description, discussions utilizing terms such as "receiving," "generating, ""summing, ""detecting, ""storing, ""prompting, ""assigning," "applying", or the like, refer to the action and processes of a computer system, or similar electronic computing device, that manipulates and transforms data represented as physical (electronic) quantities within the computer system's registers and memories into other data similarly represented as physical quantities within the computer system memories or registers or other such information storage, transmission or display devices" (para 0034). Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the step of receiving user input comprising the recited data and displaying data/prompts encompasses receiving and outputting data by a conventional computer (and the dependent claims further limit the data being received). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Therefore, there is no indication that any of these additional elements provide a practical application of the recited judicial exception outside of the judicial exception itself. As such, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
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). Further analyzing the additional elements under step 2B, the additional elements as described above do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As directed in the Berkheimer memorandum of 19 April 2018 and set forth in the MPEP, determinations of whether or not additional elements (or a combination of additional elements) may provide significantly more and/or an inventive concept rests in whether or not the additional elements (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Said assessment is made by a factual determination stemming from a conclusion that an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry, which is determined by either a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
With respect to the instant claims under the 2B analysis, the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Therefore, the additional elements do not comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, and the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). As such, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prajapati et al. (Mathematics Today 2016, Vol.32, p 20-32; hereafter referred to as Prajapati), further in view of Lamothe and Balan (“Chapter 1”. Expect the unexpected. A first course in biostatistics 2017. Second Edition. pp 3-13; hereafter referred to as Lamothe) and Zaborowska (2021. Trihybrid Cross calculator - punnet square).
With respect to claims 1, 7-8, 14-15 and 20, Prajapati discloses a table of possible genotypes and blood groups of offspring when the blood groups of parents are known (i.e. receiving the blood group type associated with a first and second parent) (p 25, para 3).
Prajapati further discloses mathematical modeling of multiple allele ABO-blood groups with Rh factor, in which a table of possible genotypes and blood groups of offspring when blood groups of parents are known is generated using the Punnett Square method (p 25- p 28, section 4).Prajapati further discloses that determining genotype probability using a Punnett square is well-known in the art (p 22, para 3-4).
However, Prajapati does not appear to disclose generating a row vector having relative weights associated with each blood type, summing the row vector to generate a total value, dividing each element of the row vector by the total value to generate a resultant for each blood type or multiplying each resultant by 100 to generate a probability rate for each corresponding blood type.
However, the prior art to Lamothe, in the same field of endeavor, discloses that creating Punnett Squares to determine blood types with relative proportion assigned to each blood type and the technique for determining genotype and phenotype probability using a Punnett Square (p 8-9, Example 1.5; fig 1.3). Lamothe further discloses Punnett Squares and Mendel’s laws are well known and provide the basis the law of segregation (p 6, para 3).
The prior art to Zaborowska, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a online (i.e. computer implemented) genotype probability calculator that displays the probability rate for each blood type and discloses that genotype probability can be calculated by creating a Punnett square, counting how many times a given genotype is present in your table, finding out the total number of combinations in a table (i.e. total value), and dividing the number of your genotype by the total number of combinations, and multiply it by 100 to make it a percentage (p 1-2; p 5, “How to calculate genotype probability”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mathematical modeling of multiple allele ABO-blood groups with Rh factor as disclosed by Prajapati with the steps for determining genotype probability as disclosed by Zaborowska and Lamothe, because determining genotype probability using a Punnett square is well-known in the art as disclosed by Prajapati and Lamothe. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because determining a genotype probability would not impede the mathematical modeling of Prajapati.
With respect to claim 2 and 9 , Prajapati does not appear to disclose prompting the user for input associated with the parents and storing it in a register.
However, Zaborowska prompt the user for input for the calculator, shows the input (i.e. storing it) (p 1-2).
With respect to claims 3-5, 10-12 and 16-18, Prajapati discloses a table for the ABO and Rh blood types of parents, in which the matrix detects the alleles of the parents, including the dominant-recessive alleles, and assigns them to the appropriate rows and tables within the Punnett Square (p 26-28). While Prajapati does not disclose counting each blood type or storing each value, every possible blood type based on the blood type policies relating to the blood type traits is listed in their table, indicating that it can be counted and stored if needed. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to count the different genotypes/phenotypes and store the values, since this count is necessary for determining genotype/phenotype probability, which is a known technique in the art, as disclosed by Zaborowska and Lamothe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claims 6, 13 and 19, Prajapati discloses a donor and recipient matrix, and retrieving elements from it to determine which blood types and donate/receive blood to/from other blood types (p 29, second table; table 1.7). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determine/display the probability rate for each corresponding blood type and the blood donor match for each type through routine experimentation of application of the results shown in Table 1.7 of Prajapati within the prior art conditions of mathematically modeling ABO blood groups with Rh factor. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
Furthermore, with respect to the claims 1-20, the courts have held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result (such as, adding using a computer to automate a manual method) is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. (See MPEP 2144.04(III).) The steps for using a Punnett Square to determine genotype and phenotype probabilities are well-known in the art, and include the steps of assigning the genotypes to the rows and columns, determining the resultant genotype at the intersection of each column/row iteratively, storing the values, determining the various combinations at the intersections, counting and summing the different genotypes, using the counts and sums to determine the genotype probabilities, displaying results, and using the policies for each allele (dominant, recessive, co-dominant, etc.) to determine the probability of each phenotype, as evidenced by Prajapati, Lamothe and Zaborowska. Therefore, automating the steps using a computer is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.
Therefore, the invention is prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIDHI DHARITHREESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Larry D Riggs II can be reached at (571) 270-3062. 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.
/N.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/Karlheinz R. Skowronek/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1687