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. Status of Claims Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority to CN202110481497.3 filed 30 April 2021 under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Accordingly, the effective filing date of the claimed invention is 20 April 2022. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 14 Aug. 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the list of cited references was considered in full by the examiner. Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS CONTAINING NUCLEOTIDE AND/OR AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DISCLOSURES Items 1) and 2) provide general guidance related to requirements for sequence disclosures. 37 CFR 1.821(c) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.821(a) must contain a "Sequence Listing," as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825. This "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure may be submitted: In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter "Legal Framework") as an ASCII text file, together with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file in a separate paragraph of the specification as required by 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) identifying: the name of the ASCII text file; ii) the date of creation; and iii) the size of the ASCII text file in bytes; In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying: the name of the ASCII text file; the date of creation; and the size of the ASCII text file in bytes; In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(2) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF file (not recommended); or In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(3) on physical sheets of paper (not recommended). When a “Sequence Listing” has been submitted as a PDF file as in 1(c) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(2)) or on physical sheets of paper as in 1(d) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(3)), 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) requires a computer readable form (CRF) of the “Sequence Listing” in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824. If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the PDF copy and the CRF copy (the ASCII text file copy) are identical. If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed on paper or read-only optical disc, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the paper or read-only optical disc copy and the CRF are identical. Specific deficiencies and the required response to this Office Action are as follows: Specific deficiency - This application fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 because FIG. 4 and para. [0087] of the originally filed specification contains a nucleotide sequence (e.g. the reference sequence), and the application does not contain a "Sequence Listing" as a separate part of the disclosure or a CRF of the “Sequence Listing.”. Required response - Applicant must provide: A "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure; together with An amendment specifically directing its entry into the application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.825(a)(2) ; A statement that the "Sequence Listing" includes no new matter as required by 37 CFR 1.821(a)(4); and A statement that indicates support for the amendment in the application, as filed, as required by 37 CFR 1.825(a)(3). If the "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure is submitted according to item 1) a) or b) above, Applicant must also provide: A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required incorporation-by-reference paragraph, consisting of: A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version); A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter. If the "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure is submitted according to item 1) c) or d) above, applicant must also provide: A CRF in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) or 1.821(e)(2) as required by 1.825(a)(5); and A statement according to item 2) a) or b) above. Drawings The drawings received 20 April 2022 are objected to for the following reasons: the drawings fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description : #91, 92, and 93 in FIG. 20 the drawings fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: #2001, 2002, and 2003 in para. [0166] of the originally filed specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. Examiner comment: It is noted the characters #2001, 2002, and 2003 in the specification appear to correspond to the characters #91, 92, and 93 in FIG. 20, and thus the drawings can be amended to include 2001, 2002, and 2003 instead of 91, 92, and 93 to address these two objections. Specification References to Applicant’s specification refer to the paragraph numbering in the originally filed specification. Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives. Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: the abstract refers to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention at lines 8-11; and the abstract recite “The present disclosures provide…”, which is a phrase which can be implied. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Interpretation Applicant’s specification at para. [0182] defines computer readable media to not include transitory media. Therefore, the “One or more computer readable media” of claims 9-16 are interpreted to be one or more non-transitory computer-readable media. Claims 6 and 14 recite “inputting the gene features into a three-dimensional network model to obtain the mutation detection result…”. In light of Applicant’s specification in at least para. [0110]-[0111], the network model is interpreted to refer to a neural network model. Claims 7 and 15 recite “21-genotype prediction information”. Applicant’s specification at para. [097] defines the 21 genotypes for which the 21-genotype prediction information is directed to include are ‘AA’, ‘AC’, ‘AG’, ‘AT’, ‘CC’, ‘CG’, ‘CT’, ‘GG’, ‘GT’, ‘TT’, ‘AI’, ‘CI’, ‘GI’, ‘TI’, ‘AD’, ‘CD’, ‘GD’, ‘TD’, ‘II’, and ‘DD’, wherein A, C, G, T are four bases, and I and D are insertions and deletions respectively. Therefore, the “21-genotype prediction information” is interpreted to encompass any prediction information regarding these 21 genotypes. Claim Interpretation-35 USC § 112(f) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “performing a feature extraction operation ” in claims 1, 9, and 17; and “performing the feature extraction operation…in a statistical counting mode ” in claims 4, 12, and 20. The term “feature extraction operation” includes (A) the generic placeholder “operation”, analogous to the placeholder “step”, (B) is modified by the functional language “feature extraction”, and (C) is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function of extracting features . Similarly, the “statistical counting mode” (A) uses the generic placeholder “mode”, (B) is modified by functional language of “statistical counting”, and (C) is not modified by sufficient acts for obtaining the gene features. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. The specification discloses the following: Regarding the hardware for the feature extraction operation and statistical counting mode , Applicant’s specification at para. [0168] and FIG. 20 discloses a genome feature extraction apparatus that may be implemented as an electronic device, including a mobile phone, tablet computer, a server, or a processor and memory. The hardware will be interpreted accordingly, including equivalents thereof. Regarding the algorithms for the feature extractor and statistical counting mode, Applicant’s specification does not disclose an algorithm. Instead, Applicant’s specification in at least para. [0188] states that the feature extraction operation is “based on the confidence level” and/or is performed in “a statistical counting mode based on the confidence level”. No algorithm is similarly provided for the “statistical counting mode”, that would provide an algorithm for the feature extraction operation. Applicant’s specification at para. [0083] discusses the feature extraction can be performed by adopting a method of statistical technology based on the confidence level, so that gene features can be stably obtained with the use of confidence level, and also describes what features are extracted, but does not describe steps for how these features are extracted, particularly based on a confidence level associated with the feature extraction operation. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Examiner Comment: If Applicant does not intend to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), independent claims 1, 9 , and 1 7 can be amended to recite “performing [[a]] feature extraction operation on the gene segment…”. Claims 4, 12, and 20 can similarly be amended to recite “performing the feature extraction operation on the gene segment… in a by statistical counting…”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (a) 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. Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 9, and 17, and claims dependent therefrom, recite “performing a feature extraction operation ” , and claims 4, 12, and 20 recite “performing the feature extraction operation…in a statistical counting mode ” , which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as explained above. MPEP 2181 II. B. states f or a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Net MoneyIN , Inc. v. Verisign. Inc ., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). As explained above under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Applicant’s specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure for the algorithm of the feature extraction operation and statistical count mode Therefore, the specification does not provide a sufficient disclosure of the limitation s recited in claims 1, 9, and 17, and claims dependent therefrom, and dependent claims 4, 12, and 20 to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention at the time the application was filed. For more information regarding the written description requirement, see MPEP §2161.01- §2163.07(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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. Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Claim limitation “a feature extraction operation” in claims 1, 9, and 17, and claims dependent therefrom, and “a statistical counting mode” in claims 4, 12, and 20 in invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) . However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for the reasons already discussed above. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) . Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. For purpose of examination, the “feature extraction operation” will be interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim to comprise any method of performing feature extraction , and the “statistical counting model” will be interpreted to mean that the feature selection is performed using statistical counting (e.g. determining a counting statistic). 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 judicial exception without significantly more. The Supreme Court has established a two-step framework for this analysis, wherein a claim does not satisfy § 101 if (1) it is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea, and (2), if so, the particular elements of the claim, considered “both individually and as an ordered combination,” do not add enough to “transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355). Applicant is also directed to MPEP 2106. Step 1: The instantly claimed invention (clai ms 1, 9, and 17 being representative) is directed a method, product, and apparatus . Therefore, the instantly claimed invention falls into one of the four statutory categories. [Step 1: YES] Step 2A: First it is determined in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exce ption, and if so, then it is determined in in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Step 2A, Prong 1: Under the MPEP § 2106.04, the Step 2A (Prong 1 ) analysis requires determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Claim s 1, 9, and 17 recite the following steps which fall under the mental processes groupings of abstract ideas: obtaining a gene segment to be processed, the gene segment including a base quality; determining a confidence level corresponding to the gene segment based on the base quality; and performing a feature extraction operation on the gene segment based on the confidence level corresponding to the gene segment to obtain gene features of the gene segment. The identified claim limitations falls into the of abstract ideas of mental processes for the following reasons. In this case , obtaining a gene segment including a base quality encompasses simply reading or determining a nucleotide sequence and base quality information corresponding to a gene segment to obtain information . Determining a confidence level based on the base quality amounts to a mere analysis of information to make a qualitative determination of a level of confidence depending on if the base quality is low or high. Last, performing feature extraction on the gene segment based on the confidence level can be practically performed in the mind by analyzing the nucleotide sequence of the gene segment and extracting particular variants (i.e. features) if they have a certain confidence level. Overall, the limitations amount to collecting and analyzing information, similar to a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A ., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) . That is, other than reciting the above steps are carried out by a computing device or processor, nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being practically performed in the mind. Dependent claims 2 - 8, 10 - 16, and 18-20 further recite an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2, 10, and 18 further recite the mental process of obtaining a reference sequence and gene sequence, and matching the reference sequence and the gene sequence to determine the gene segment. Dependent claims 3, 11, and 19 further recite the mental process and mathematical concept of obtaining ratio information between the base quality and 10, and determining the confidence level based on the ratio information. Dependent claims 4, 12, and 20 further recites the mental process and mathematical concept of performing the feature extraction using statistical counting based on the confidence level to determine base information, base positions, and statistics of the base information. Dependent claims 5 and 13 further recite the mental process of performing mutation detection based on the gene features. Dependent claims 6 and 14 further recite the mental process of performing mutation detections on gene segments based on respective gene features. Dependent claims 7 and 15 further recite the mental process of obtaining mutation reference information and obtaining a mutation detection result according to the mutation reference information (e.g. comparing sequences). Dependent claims 8 and 16 further recite the mental process of performing disease prediction based on the mutation detection result. Therefore, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea. [Step 2A, Prong 1: YES] Step 2A: Prong 2: Under the MPEP § 2106.04, the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis requires identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. Dependent claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-13, 15-16, and 18-20 do not recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception, and thus are part of the judicial exception. The additional elements of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 include: one or more computing devices (claim 1); one or more computer readable media (claim 9); one or more processors and memory storing executable instructions (i.e. a computer) (claim 17). The additional elements of dependent claims 6 and 14 include: inputting the gene features into a three-dimensional network model to obtain the mutation detection result, wherein the three-dimensional network model is trained… The additional elements of a computer comprising a processor and memory, computer readable medium, a 3D neural network model, and inputting data are generic computer components or processes. The courts have found 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 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the additional elements of a trained three-dimensional network model is generally recited, and similarly amounts to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer, in addition to merely linking the abstract idea of performing a mutation detection based on gene features to the technological environment of 3D neural networks. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the additionally recited elements merely invoke computers as a tool to carry out the abstract idea and generally link the abstract idea to the technological environment of 3D neural networks , and as such, the claims as a whole do no integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Thus, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea. [Step 2A, Prong 2: NO] Step 2B: In the second step it is determined whether the claimed subject matter includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. The claims do not include any additional steps appended to the judicial exception that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the following reasons. Dependent claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-13, 15-16, and 18-20 do not recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception, and thus are part of the judicial exception. The additional elements of claims 1, 6, 9, 14, and 17 are outlined above under Step 2A, Prong 2. The additional elements of a computer comprising a processor and memory, computer readable medium, a 3D neural network model, and inputting data are conventional computer components or processes. The courts have found 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). Further regarding the linking of the abstract idea to the technological environment of 3D neural networks, a s explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr , 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself . Therefore, t aken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself . [Step 2B: NO] Therefore, the instantly rejected claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For additional guidance, applicant is directed generally to applicant is directed generally to the MPEP § 2106 . 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (2019) in view of Valouev (2021). Cited reference s : Luo et al., a multi-task convolution deep neural network for variant calling in single molecule sequencing, March 2019, Nature Communications , 10:998, pg. 1-11; and Valouev et al. US 2021/0065847 A1; Pub. Date 04 March 2021. Regarding claim s 1 , 9, and 17 , Luo discloses a method for determining a consensus base call , called Clairvoyante , (Abstract) , wherein the method is implemented on a computer with a processor and memory (i.e. the apparatus of claim 17 and a compute readable medium of claim 9) (Table 1; pg. 9, col. 2, para. 3-4) and compris es the following steps: Luo discloses receiving an input sample with a candidate variant and overlapping sequencing reads corresponding to a 33 base pair region around the candidate variant (i.e. a segment to be processed) (pg. 8, col. 2, para. 6). Luo discloses imposing base quality as a weight on read de pth in the region (i.e. a confidence level based on the base quality corresponding to the gene segment ) , which requires the weight is determined (pg. 7, col. 2, para. 2 to pg. 8, col. 1, para. 1). Luo discloses extracting features, including a number of reads (i.e. a depth) supporting the reference alleles and alternative alleles to obtain features of the region (pg. 8, col. 2, para. 6; FIG. 4, e.g. extracted features). Luo discloses imposing the weight on the read depth features (pg. 7, col. 2, para. 2 to pg. 8, col. 1, para. 1), which shows the feature extraction is based on the confidence level . Regarding the dependent claims: Regarding claim 2 , Luo discloses obtaining a reference genome (i.e. reference sequence) and whole genome sequencing reads (i.e. necessarily including a gene sequence) (pg. 8, col. 1, para. 5-6, e.g. raw reads downloaded and aligned to GRCh37), which comprises a plurality of gene segments. Luo discloses aligning the reads to the reference genome (i.e. matching the reference sequence and the gene sequence) (pg. 8, col. 1, para. 5-6), wherein candidate variants (i.e. bases which do not match with the reference sequence) exist in the segments of the genome (pg. 8, col. 2, para. 6, e.g. candidate variants from read alignments are processed by model). Luo analyzes a 33 base pair region around a candidate variant from the aligned sequencing data (pg. 8, col. 2, para. 6). Luo further discloses using Clairvoyante to call variants at common variant sites with global minor allele frequency of greater than 5% (i.e. a proportion of unmatched bases in the segments is larger than a threshold) (pg. 3, col. 1, para. 2). Regarding claims 4, 12, and 20 ¸ Luo discloses the feature extraction comprises extracting features from the read alignment by determining count statistics at each of the 33 base positions of the gene segment to form a multidimensional tensor with the first dimension corresponding to the position of each base (i.e. base positions), the second dimension corresponding to the counts of A, C, G, or T on the sequencing reads (i.e. base information), and the third dimension corresponding to four different ways of counting, including a count supporting the reference allele and 3 separate counts for inserted sequences, deleted sequences, and alternative alleles each relative to the count supporting the reference allele (i.e. statistics corresponding to the base information) (pg. 8, col. 2, para. 6; Fig. 4). Regarding claims 5 and 13 , Luo discloses inputting the extracted features into a classifier to determine a variant classification (i.e. a mutation detection result based on the gene features) (Figure 3; pg. 8, col. 1, para. 7 to col. 2, para. 4). Regarding claims 6 and 1 4 , Luo discloses determining the variant classification compris es inputting the extracted features in the form of a 3- dimensional tensor into a three-dimensional convolution neural network (pg. 8, col. 2, para. 5- 6; Fig. 3-4). Luo discloses the neural network is trained to classify variants based on the same extracted gene features for a training set (Figure 3; pg. 7, col. 2, para. 2; pg. 8, col. 1, para. 7 to col. 2, para. 4). Regarding claims 7 and 15 , Luo determining the variant classification comprises obtaining classification data for truth variant data in a training set (i.e. mutation reference information), including four categorical variables, including: the alternate base at a SNP or the reference base otherwise (i.e. 21-genotype prediction), the zygosity of the variant (i.e. zygotic prediction information), a variant type including a single nucleotide polymorphism (i.e. a first allelic mutation length information), and the length of the insertion or deletion (i.e. second allelic mutation length information) (Fig. 3; pg. 8, col.1, para. 7 to col. 2, para. 4). Luo discloses determining the variant classification result involves inputting the extracted features into a convolution neural network trained on the training set (i.e. the mutation reference information) (Fig. 3; pg. 7, col. 2, para. 1; pg. 8, col.1, para. 7 to col. 2, para. 4). Luo does not disclose the following limitations: Regarding claims 1 -2 , 9 -10 , and 17 -19 , Luo does not explicitly disclose : the segment to be analyzed is a gene segment , as recited in claims 1, 9, and 17; and similarly, the gene segment to be processed is determined from among the plurality of gene segment s, as recited in claims 2, 10, and 19. Regarding claims 8 and 16 , Luo does not disclos e performing disease prediction based on the mutation detection result. Regarding claims 1 -2 , 9 -10 , and 17 -18, Valouev discloses a method for determining consensus base calls (Abstract), which comprises analyzing sequencing data of a 507 gene panel for somatic variant identification ([0300]) and determining a genomic region of interest to be analyzed ([0253]; [0297]), demonstrating the genomic region of interest is a gene segment selected from gene segments. Valouev transforms the sequencing dataset into a feature set which is analyzed by a classifier to determine a consensus base call ([0013]), similar to the analysis of Luo which classifies variants as discussed above. Regarding claims 8 a nd 16 , Valouev further discloses consensus sequences can be used for downstream applications including the diagnosis of human genetic diseases ([0075]) and that variant calling permits higher confidence in diagnosing diseases with genetic components, such as cancer ([0066]). Valouev further discloses an essential component in using DNA sequencing information to diagnose cancer is obtaining high quality sequencing data that enables detection of mutations ([0061]) It would have bee prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Luo to have analyzed sequencing data from a gene panel, determined features for a gene segment from the gene panel, and then utilize a variant call to diagnose a disease with a genetic component, as shown by Valouev above ( [0066]; [0075]; [0253]; [0297]; [0300]) . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the methods of Luo and Valouev to facilitate detection of mutations in genes related to cancer, thus facilitating cancer diagnosis, as shown by Valouev ([0061]; [0066]). This modification would have had a reasonable expectation of success given the variant caller of Luo could be applied to the gene region of interest of Valouev . Therefore, the invention is prima facie obvious. Claims 3, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Valouev , as applied to claim s 1, 9, and 17 above, and further in view of Li (2008). Cited reference: Li et al. , Mapping short DNA sequencing reads and calling variants using mapping quality scores, 2008, Genome Research , 18, pg. 1851-1858 . Regarding claims 3, 11, and 19 , Luo in view of Valouev make obvious the method, product, and apparatus of claims 1, 9, and 17, as applied above. Further r egarding claims 3, 11, and 19 , Luo in view of Valouev , as applied to claims 1, 9, and 17, does not disclose determining the confidence level comprises obtaining ratio information between the base quality and 10, and determining the confidence level corresponding to the gene segment based on the ratio information, wherein the confidence level is positively correlated with the base quality and is less than 1. However, it is noted that Valouev does further disclose weighing sequence features for variant calling using a weight called a discounted value that is between 0 and 1, with a highest weight given to base calls with the highest phred quality score, decreasing with lower quality scores ([0241], e.g. for a given base call, weights of 1, 1/2, and 1/3 are used for first through third ranked quality score). Furthermore , Li discloses a method for calling variants in DNA sequencing reads using mapping quality scores (Abstract), and discloses that per-base quality scores encode a probability that a base is wrongly called, and is more informative and helpful than simply discarding poor data (pg. 1851, col. 2, para. 2). Li discloses calculating the error probability (i.e. a confidence level) for a position of a read comprising determining a ratio of a phred base quality score by 10 and then determining the error probability as 10 raised to the power of the negative ratio , which is less than 1 (pg. 1856, col. 2, para. 2, e.g. 10 -(20+10/10) = 0.001 ) . This is equivalent to a probability of a base being correct, subtracted from 1 (e.g. probability of correct base = 1 – probability of error) , which is positively correlated with base quality according to the equation for the error probability . While Li discloses per-base quality scores encode an error probability and calculating the probability of an error being present based on the base quality score, Valouev further discloses that misclassification is more likely for base reads with low read depth ([0171]), wherein a bag depth refers to a sequencing depth ([0174]) and also uses weights positively correlated with base quality as discussed above . Given, Lou discloses imposing base quality as a weight on depth in the input to the model (pg. 7, col. 2, para. 2 to pg. 8, col. 1, para. 1), Valouev makes obvious that the weight imposed by Lou needs to be positively correlated with base quality such that base reads with low depth are weighted lower due to the higher likelihood of misclassification . This shows the probability of a correct base (1- the probability of error) of Li would be used as the weight. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Luo in view of Valouev , as applied to claims 1, 9, and 17 above, to have used the weight of the probability of a base being correct (i.e. 1- the probability of error) of Li, discussed above, thus arriving at the inventions of claims 3, 11, and 19. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the methods of Luo in view of Valouev with Li based applying the known technique of calculating a probability of a base being correct or incorrect based on a phred quality score of Li with the known method of imposing base quality as a weight on depth for variant calling in Luo. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the error probability value between 0 and 1 of Li is applicable as the base quality weight of Luo , given Li discloses quality scores encode a probability a base is wrongly called (pg. 1851, col. 2, para.2) and Luo teaches imposing base quality as a weight (pg. 8, col. 2, para. 2). Furthermore, the weight of Li would predictably serve to weight the counts supporting a particular base call (depth) based on the probability of the base call being correct, thus providing higher weights to base calls more likely to be correct , as taught by Valouev ([0171]; [0241]). Last , one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination would result in an improved method by accounting for base quality in the extracted features, as shown by Luo (pg. 8, col. 2, para. 1), and furthermore, provide low quality mappings that can be used to be learned by the Clairvoyante model to be unreliable, as shown by Luo (pg. 8, col. 2, para. 1) and also Li (pg. 1851, col. 2, para. 2 , e.g. using base quality is more informative than discarding low quality mappings ) . Therefore, the invention is prima facie obvious . Double Patenting The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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).