The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on January 12, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). The species election requirement is withdrawn by examiner. So that claims 1-3, 6-14 and 23-26 are being examined. Claims 15 and 19-22 are withdrawn from consideration being directed to a non-elected group. Applicant is advised that should claims 2-3 be found allowable, claims 23-24 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claims 25-26 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 12-13. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). 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 1-3 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a law of nature without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) differential expression levels of all of the proteins in the subset of proteins are analyzed relative to a control to predict whether the patient has preclinical pulmonary fibrosis is a law of nature because it uses a natural relationship and/or correlation between a subset of proteins in the body to predict the presence of preclinical pulmonary fibrosis . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity . The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because obtaining a sample from a patient and isolating a subset of proteins from the sample are equivalent to measuring a biomarker in a sample. In particular determining the level of a biomarker in blood has been deemed to be mere data gathering by the Court, s ee Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. Claims 6-14 and 2 5 -2 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a law of nature without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) differential expression levels of all of the proteins in the subset of proteins are analyzed relative to a control to predict whether the patient has preclinical pulmonary fibrosis is a law of nature because it uses a natural relationship and/or correlation between a subset of proteins in the body to predict the presence of preclinical pulmonary fibrosis . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity . Additionally, t his judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the administ ering step following the judicial exception do es not add a meaningful limitation to the method as it is not dependent on the result of the judicial exception and could be based on some other knowledge and/or testing done by the person administering the active ingredient so that this step also constitutes insignificant extra-solution /post-solution activity . The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because obtaining a sample from a patient and isolating a subset of proteins from the sample are equivalent to measuring a biomarker in a sample. In particular determining the level of a biomarker in blood has been deemed to be mere data gathering by the Court, s ee Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication that claims 6-14 are free of the art of record : the art of record fails to teach of fairly suggest the claimed invention. In particular, the newly cited Richards ( American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2012) paper shows that plasma proteins related to idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis have been studied to determine if they predict issues/properties related to the disease such as mortality since at least 2012. The newly cited Hara paper (Respiratory medicine 2012) s h ows that the instantly claimed S100A9 protein in BALF was identified as a candidate biomarker of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The Ji patent publication (US 2020/0010468) looked at a molecule associated with a number of diseases including idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (see paragraph [0528]). Paragraph [0530] of Ji lists a number of compounds including the four required by claim 6 involved with this compound. Thus one looking at a particular disease would have looked at the various compounds listed by Ji relative to various aspects of a disease such as idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. These factors together show that determination of a set of potential biomarkers related to preclinical pulmonary fibrosis (early/pre-stages of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis ) in a particular body fluid would not have been considered a predictable endeavor by those of ordinary skill in the art . Thus, it is difficult to say that one testing the proteins listed by Ji for their relationship to idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis or its preclinical / early stages as had been done by Richards would have found that the four claimed proteins had a particular relationship to the early stages of pulmonary fibrosis that one could utilize to start a treatment for the condition. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art is directed to pulmonary fibrosis and/or the claimed subset of proteins. The Hara reference citation is a correction of the previous Hara reference citation. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Arlen Soderquist whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1265 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 1st week Monday-Thursday, 2nd week Monday-Friday . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Lyle Alexander can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1254 . 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. /ARLEN SODERQUIST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797