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 the Claims Claims 1-28 are pending and under consideration in this action. Priority The instant application is a CON of U.S. Application No. 17/314,215 , filed 5/7/2021 , now issued U.S. Patent No. 11352621 , which is a CON of U.S. Application No. 17/208,519 , filed 3/22/2021 , now issued U.S. Patent No. 11155808 , which is a CON of U.S. Application No. 17/071,691 , filed 10/15/2020, now issued U.S. Patent No. 10968445 , which is a CON of U.S. Application No. 16/838,409 , filed 4/2/2020, now issued U.S. Patent No. 10808243 , which is a CON of U.S. Application No. 16/458,376 , filed 7/1/2019, now issued U.S. Patent No. 10647980 , which is a CON of U.S. Application No. 15/923,527 , filed 3/16/2018, now issued U.S. Patent No. 10336998 , which is a CON of U.S. Application No. 15/396,230 , filed 12/30/2016 , now issued U.S. Patent No. 9988624 , which is a CON of PCT/ US2016 /065465 , filed 12/7/2016, which claims domestic benefit to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/368,786, filed 7/29/2016. The instant application is also a CIP of 15/140,296, filed 4/27/2016, now issued U.S. Patent No. 11151497, which claims domestic benefit to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/264,232, filed 12/7/2015. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S .C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows: The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc. , 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Provisional Application No. 62/264,232 , fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Step (b) of claims 1 and 16 and step (c) of claims 10 and 21 recites the use of a machine learning model to determine a set of genetic variation combinations that are predicted to confer a greater degree of a desired phenotype. This limitation is lacking support in the specification of the provisional application (Application No. 62/264,232 ). Accordingly claims 1-28 are not entitled to the benefit of this prior application. As such, the effective filing date of claims 1-28 is 7/29/2016 , the filing date of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/368,786 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/29/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claims 3 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 3 and 18 recite “a SNP swap” in lines 2 and 3 of the claims, respectively, which should be corrected to “a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) swap” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including observations, evaluations, judgements or opinions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)). Step 1: In the instant application, claims 1-15 are directed towards a method and claims 16-28 are directed towards a manufacture , which falls into one of the categories of statutory subject matter ( Step 1: YES ). Step 2A , Prong One: 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 One ). The following instant claims recite limitations that equate to one or more categories of judicial exceptions: Claims 1, 10, 16, and 21 recite a mental process (i.e., an evaluation /comparison of the genetic variation combinations with a greater degree of a desired phenotype compared to other variations) in “determin ing , based on screening and selecting engineered host cells from the first plurality of engineered host cells for a phenotypic performance metric, and using a machine learning model, a set of genetic variation combinations from the plurality of genetic variations, that are predicted to confer a greater degree of a desired phenotype associated with the phenotypic performance metric than other combinations of genetic variations from the plurality of genetic variation s”. It is noted that the machine learning model can be a linear regression model, which can be performed using pen and paper (see instant specification Para. [0420] -[0440]). Claim s 3 and 18 recite a mental process (i.e., an observation of the type of genetic variation) in “wherein the first plurality of engineered host cells comprises a genetic variation selected from the group consisting of a promoter swap, a SNP swap, start/stop codon microbial strain library, optimized sequence microbial strain library, a terminator swap microbial strain library, and any combination thereof ” . Claim s 4 and 19 recite a mental process (i.e., an evaluation of whether the phenotype is greater than a predetermined threshold and in comparison to previous steps ) in “repeating steps (b)-(d) one or more times in a linear or non-linear fashion, until determining that an engineered host cell in the subsequent plurality of engineered host cells has acquired a degree of the desired phenotype that is greater than a predetermined threshold , wherein each subsequent iteration of step (b) is based on screening and selecting engineered host cells from the plurality of engineered host cells created in any previous step, and each subsequent iteration of step (c) defines a further subsequent plurality of engineered host cells that each has a combination of genetic variations selected from any of the sets of genetic variation combinations defined in any previous step ” . Claim s 5 and 23 recite a mental process (i.e., an evaluation/comparison of the increase in the degree of the desired phenotype) in “wherein the subsequent plurality of engineered host cells includes at least one engineered host cell with at least a predicted 10 % increase in the degree of the desired phenotype compared to that an engineered host cell from the first plurality of engineered host cells ” . Claim s 6 and 24 recite a mental process (i.e., an evaluation/comparison of the increase in the phenotypic performance metric) in “wherein the subsequent plurality of engineered host cells includes at least one engineered host cell with a predicted one-fold level increase in the phenotypic performance metric compared to that of an engineered host cell from the first plurality of engineered host cells ” . Claim 7 recites a mental process (i.e., an evaluation of the type of phenotypic performance metric) in “wherein the phenotypic performance metric includes at least one of: increased volumetric productivity of a product of interest, increased specific productivity of a product of interest, increased yield of a product of interest, increased titer of a product of interest, or a combination thereof ” . Claim s 8 and 20 recite a mental process (i.e., an evaluation of the type of machine learning model) in “wherein the machine learning model includes at least one of: linear regression, kernel ridge regression, logistic regression, neural networks, support vector machines ( SVMs ), decision trees, hidden Markov models, Bayesian networks, a Gram-Schmidt process, reinforcement-based learning, cluster-based learning, hierarchical clustering, genetic algorith m s, or co m binations thereof ” . Claim 9 recites a mental process (i.e., an evaluation of the genetic variation data for the first and subsequent plurality of engineered host cells ) in “wherein each of the first plurality of engineered host cells and the subsequent plurality of engineered host cells includes thousands of engineered host cells each engineered to have a genetic variation or combination of genetic variations from the plurality of genetic variations ” . Claim s 10 and 21 further recite a mental process (i.e., an observation of the output data on the display for output, see specification Para. [0481]) in “generating an output identifying the set of genetic variation combinations ” . Claim s 12 and 22 recite a mental process (i.e., an evaluation of the color/absorption changes in the samples to in relation to the genetic variations) in “the set of genetic variation combinations being determined at least in part based on the data received from the camera vision or spectrometer system ”. These recitations are similar to the concepts of collecting information, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis is Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), and comparing information regarding a sample or test to a control or target data in Univ. of Utah Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics Corp. (774 F.3d 755, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO (689 F.3d 1303, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2012)) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind. The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitations when read in light of and consistent with the specification, and are determined to be directed to mental processes that in the simplest embodiments are not too complex to practically perform in the human mind. The instant claims must therefore be examined further to determine whether they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application ( Step 2A , Prong One: YES ). Step 2A , Prong Two: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, further examination is performed that analyzes if the claim recites additional elements that when examined as a whole integrates the judicial exception(s) into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(d)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will appl y , rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claimed additional elements are analyzed to determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the abstract idea, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(III)). The following claims recite limitations that equate to additional elements: Claim 1 recites “a processor”; “generating data of a host cell library defining a first plurality of engineered host cells, each engineered host cell from the first plurality of engineered host cells having a genetic variation such that the first plurality of engineered host cells has a plurality of genetic variations”; and “generating data of a subsequent host cell library defining a subsequent plurality of engineered host cells that each has a combination of genetic variations selected from the set of genetic variation combinations, wherein each genetic variation in the combination of genetic variations is present in engineered host cells from the first plurality of engineered host cells”. Claim s 2 and 17 further recites “sending , by the processor, instructions to automated liquid and particle handling robotics to cause the automated liquid and particle handling robotics to manipulate liquid or particles added to or removed from cultures having a plurality of base host cells to create the subsequent plurality of engineered host cells”. Claim 10 recites “a processor”; “generating data of a host cell library having a first plurality of engineered host cells, each engineered host cell from the first plurality of engineered host cells having a genetic variation, such that the first plurality of engineered host cells has a plurality of genetic variations ”; and “sending instructions to automated liquid and particle handling robotics to cause the automated liquid and particle handling robotics to manipulate liquid or p articles added to or removed from cultures having a plurality of base host cells to create the first plurality of engineered host cells”. Claim s 11 and 25 further recite “sending, by the processor, second instructions to a thermal regulator to maintain a temperature of samples containing the first plurality of engineered host cells within a predetermined temperature range”. Claim s 12 and 22 further recite “receiving, from a camera vision or spectrometer system, data indicative of color or absorption changes in samples containing the first plurality of engineered host cells”. Claim s 13 and 26 further recite “sending the instructions to the automated liquid and particle handling robotics that causes the automated liquid and particle handling robotics to perform liquid and particle manipulations including one or more of: aspiration, dispensing, mixing, diluting, washing, volumetric transfers, retrieving and discarding of pipette tips, or repetitive pipetting of identical volumes”. Claim s 14 and 27 further recit e “sending the instructions to cause robotic arms of the automated liquid and particle handling robotics to manipulate liquid or particles added to or removed from the cultures”. Claim s 15 and 28 further recite “sending the instructions to cause a high-throughput transformation system of the automated liquid and particle handling robotics to transform a base host cell from the plurality of base host cells into an engineered host cell from the first plurality of engineered host cells”. Claim 16 recites “a processor-readable non-transitory medium storing code representing instructions to be executed by a processor”; “generate data of a host cell library defining a first plurality of engineered host cells, each engineered host cell from the first plurality of engineered host cells having a genetic variation such that the first plurality of engineered host cells has a plurality of genetic variations”; and “generate data of a subsequent host cell library defining a subsequent plurality of engineered host cells that each has a combination of genetic variations selected from the set of genetic variation combinations, wherein each genetic variation in the combination of genetic variations is present in engineered host cells from the first plurality of engineered host cells”. Claim 21 recites “a processor-readable non-transitory medium storing code representing instructions to be executed by a processor”; “generate data of a host cell library defining a first plurality of engineered host cells, each engineered host cell from the first plurality of engineered host cells having a genetic variation such that the first plurality of engineered host cells has a plurality of genetic variations”; and “send instructions to automated liquid and particle handling robotics to cause the automated liquid and particle handling robotics to manipulate liquid or particles added to or re m oved from cultures having a plurality of base host cells to create the first plurality of engineered host cells”. Regarding the above cited limitations in claims 1, 10, 16, and 21 of ( i ) a processor (claims 1 and 10); (ii) a processor-readable non-transitory medium storing code representing instructions to be executed by a processor (claims 16 and 21) . These limitations require only a generic computer component, which does not improve computer technology. Therefore, these limitations equate to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, which the courts have established does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp. 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. Regarding the above cited limitations in claims 1 -2 , 10 -17 , 21 -22, and 25-28 of (iii) generating data of a host cell library defining a first plurality of engineered host cells, each engineered host cell from the first plurality of engineered host cells having a genetic variation such that the first plurality of engineered host cells has a plurality of genetic variations (claims 1, 10, 16, and 21); (iv) generating data of a subsequent host cell library defining a subsequent plurality of engineered host cells that each has a combination of genetic variations selected from the set of genetic variation combinations, wherein each genetic variation in the combination of genetic variations is present in engineered host cells from the first plurality of engineered host cells (claims 1 and 16); (v) sending, by the processor, instructions to automated liquid and particle handling robotics to cause the automated liquid and particle handling robotics to manipulate liquid or particles added to or removed from cul tures having a plurality of base host cells to create the subsequent plurality of engineered host cells (claims 2, 10, 17, and 21); (vi) sending, by the processor, second instructions to a thermal regulator to maintain a temperature of samples containing the first plurality of engineered host cells within a predetermined temperature range (claims 11 and 25); (vii) receiving, from a camera vision or spectrometer system, data indicative of color or absorption changes in samples containing the first plurality of engineered host cells (claims 12 and 22); (viii) sending the instructions to the automated liquid and particle handling robotics that causes the automated liquid and particle handling robotics to perform liquid and particle manipulations including one or more of: aspiration, dispensing, mixing, diluting, washing, volumetric transfers, retrieving and discarding of pipette tips, or repetitive pipetting of identical volume (claims 13 and 26); (ix) sending the instructions to cause robotic arms of the automated liquid and particle handling robotics to manipulate liquid or particles added to or removed from the cultures (claims 14 and 27); and (x) sending the instructions to cause a high-throughput transformation system of the automated liquid and particle handling robotics to transform a base host cell from the plurality of base host cells into an engineered host cell from the first plurality of engineered host cells (claims 15 and 28) . These limitations equate to insignificant, extra-solution activity of mere data gathering because these limitations gather data before or after the recited judicial exceptions of determining a set of genetic variation combinations that are predicted to confer a greater degree of a desired phenotype (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)). As such, claims 1-28 are directed to an abstract idea ( Step 2A , Prong Two: NO ). 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 claims recite additional elements that equate to well-understood, routine and conventional ( WURC ) limitations ( MPEP § 2106.05(d)). The instant claims recite same additional elements described in Step 2A , Prong Two above. Regarding the above cited limitations in claims 1, 10, 16, and 21 of ( i ) a processor (claims 1 and 10); (ii) a processor-readable non-transitory medium storing code representing instructions to be executed by a processor (claims 16 and 21) . These limitations equate to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computing environment, which the courts have established does not provide an inventive concept (see MPEP § 2106.05(d) and MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Regarding the above cited limitations in claims 2, 10 -15 , 17, 21 -22, and 25-28 of (v) sending, by the processor, instructions to automated liquid and particle handling robotics to cause the automated liquid and particle handling robotics to manipulate liquid or particles added to or removed from cul tures having a plurality of base host cells to create the subsequent plurality of engineered host cells (claims 2, 10, 17, and 21); (vi) sending, by the processor, second instructions to a thermal regulator to maintain a temperature of samples containing the first plurality of engineered host cells within a predetermined temperature range (claims 11 and 25); (vii) receiving, from a camera vision or spectrometer system, data indicative of color or absorption changes in samples containing the first plurality of engineered host cells (claims 12 and 22); (viii) sending the instructions to the automated liquid and particle handling robotics that causes the automated liquid and particle handling robotics to perform liquid and particle manipulations including one or more of: aspiration, dispensing, mixing, diluting, washing, volumetric transfers, retrieving and discarding of pipette tips, or repetitive pipetting of identical volume (claims 13 and 26); (ix) sending the instructions to cause robotic arms of the automated liquid and particle handling robotics to manipulate liquid or particles added to or removed from the cultures (claims 14 and 27); and (x) sending the instructions to cause a high-throughput transformation system of the automated liquid and particle handling robotics to transform a base host cell from the plurality of base host cells into an engineered host cell from the first plurality of engineered host cells (claims 15 and 28) . These limitations equate to receiving/transmitting data (i.e., sending instructions and receiving camera/spectrometer data) over a network, which the courts have establishe d as a WURC limitation of a generic computer in buySAFE , Inc. v. Google, Inc ., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Regarding the above cited limitations in claims 1, 10, 16, and 21 of (iii) generating data of a host cell library defining a first plurality of engineered host cells, each engineered host cell from the first plurality of engineered host cells having a genetic variation such that the first plurality of engineered host cells has a plurality of genetic variations (claims 1, 10, 16, and 21); and (iv) generating data of a subsequent host cell library defining a subsequent plurality of engineered host cells that each has a combination of genetic variations selected from the set of genetic variation combinations, wherein each genetic variation in the combination of genetic variations is present in engineered host cells from the first plurality of engineered host cells (claims 1 and 16) . These limitations are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. These steps are incidental to the primary process of using a machine learning model to predict genetic variations with a greater degree of a desired phenotype , wherein generated data of the first and subsequent host cell libraries are merely inputs for the machine learning model (see also claims 4 and 19 wherein the data are iteratively used to optimize the desired phenotype output using the model) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). These 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. Therefore, the instant claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself ( Step 2B : NO ). As such, claims 1-28 are not patent eligible . 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). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1 . For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1- 28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 2, 4, 6-7, 11-12, 15 -2 4 , 26 - 28, 31-32, and 34-37 of U.S. Patent No. 11,352,621 B2 (herein the ‘621 patent) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and the ‘621 patent are both drawn to a method for generating an engineered host cell from a host cell library with a desired phenotype . Patent claim s 1 and 22 of the ‘621 patent recite “generating data of a promoter swap host cell library…” and “generating data of a subsequent promotor swap host cell library…”. The instant application (claims 1 and 16) recites “generating data of a host cell library…” and “generating data of a subsequent host ce l l library…” . Therefore, patent claim s 1 and 22 of the ‘621 patent are a “species” of the generic invention of instant application claim s 1 and 16 . Additionally, patent claims 16 and 27 of the ‘621 patent recite “generate data of a promoter swap host cell library having a plurality of engineered host cells, each engineered host cell from the plurality of engineered host cells having a promoter-gene combination … including a plurality of promoters exhibiting different expression profiles in the plurality of base host cells”. The instant application (claims 10 and 21) recites “ generating data of a host cell library having a first plurality of engineered host cells, each engineered host cell from the first plurality of engineered host cells having a genetic variation, such that the first plurality of engineered host cells has a plurality of genetic variations ”. Therefore, patent claims 16 and 2 7 of the ‘621 patent are a “species” of the generic invention of instant application claims 10 and 21 . It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman , 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claims 10 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,155,808 B2 (herein the ‘808 patent) in view of Huber et al. (Robo-Lector – a novel platform for automated high-throughput cultivations in microtiter plates with high information content. Microb Cell Fact . 8:42 (2009); published 8/1/2009) . Issued claim 1 of the ‘808 patent does not recite sending instructions to an automated liquid and particle handling robotics to cause the automated liquid and particle handling robotics to create the engineered host cells. However, Huber et al. discloses a platform ( BioLector ) for automated high-throughput culture, wherein the pipetting robot was connected to a computer and actuated via a control software connected to a network. Different command codes for controlling the BioLector (e.g. open lid, pause measurement) were implemented in th e control software of the pipetting robot, thereby allowing the integration of the BioLector in complex workflows including liquid-handling processes (Title and Pg. 4, Col. 2, Para. 2 – Pg. 5, Col. 1, Para. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of issued claim 1 in the ‘808 patent to include the automated robot of Huber et al. because it provides an online platform for easily monitoring and controlling microbial growth through the actions of the liquid- handling robot (Huber et al., Pg. 12, Col. 2, Para. 2). Accordingly, instant claims 10 and 21 are not patentably distinct from issued claim 1 of the ‘808 patent. Claims 1, 8, 16, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 10,968,445 B2 (herein the ‘445 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and the ‘445 patent are both drawn to a method for generating an engineered host cell with a desired phenotype from genetic alterations. Claim 1 of issued patent ‘445 recites a limitation of repeating the steps to design host cells with a desired level of phenotypic performance. This limitation makes obvious the first and second host cell libraries of instant claims 1 and 16. Additionally, the processor-readable non-transitory medium storing code representing instructions to be executed by a processor of instant claim 16 is obvious over the computer-implemented method of claim 1 of the issued ‘445 patent. Claims 10, 13-14, 21, and 26-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-5 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,155,807 B2 (herein the ‘807 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and the ‘807 patent are both drawn toward engineering a host cell with a genetic alterations using a machine learning model and an automated robotics system. Claim 1 of the ‘807 paten t recites a system with a processor configured for steps for generating a host cell library and using a machine learning model for prediction of a desired phenotype, as well as automated robotics in communication with the processor, which makes obvious the method of instant claim 10. Additionally, the processor- readable non-transitory medium storing code representing instructions to be executed by a processor of instant claim 21 is obvious over the system with a processor and automated robotics of claim 1 of the issued ‘807 patent. Claims 1, 8, 16, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10, 11, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,647,980 B2 (herein the ‘ 980 patent) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and the ‘980 patent are both drawn to a computer-implemented method for engineering a host cell with genetic alterations using a machine learning model. Claim 10 of the ‘980 patent recites a steps generating a host cell library, and using a machine learning model to predict phenotypic performance. Claim 17 of the ‘980 patent repeats the steps of claim 10 of the ‘980 patent until the host cell exhibits a desired level of phenotypic performance. Therefore, claim 17 of the ‘980 patent makes obvious the method of instant claim 1, including the generation of the first and second/subsequent host cell libraries. Additionally, the processor-readable non-transitory medium storing code representing instructions to be executed by a processor of instant claim 16 is obvious over the computer-implemented method of claim 10 of the issued ‘980 patent. Claims 1, 3, 8, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 9, 12-13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10, 336,998 B2 (herein the ‘ 998 patent) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and the ‘998 patent are both drawn to a computer-implemented method for engineering a host cell with genetic alterations using a machine learning model. Claim 1 of the ‘998 patent recites a steps generating a host cell library, and using a machine learning model to predict phenotypic performance. Claim 2 of the ‘998 patent repeats the steps of claim 1 of the ‘998 patent until the host cell exhibits a desired level of improved phenotypic performance. Therefore, claim 2 of the ‘998 makes obvious the method of instant claim 1, including the generation of the first and second/subsequent host cell libraries. Claim 9 of the ‘998 patent incorporates the repet it ion step in step (j), making instant claim 1 obvious as described above. Claim 12 of the ‘998 patent creates a subset of host cells in step (e), corresponding to the second library of host cells in instant claim 1, which makes obvious the method of instant claim 1. Additionally, the processor-readable non-transitory medium storing code representing instructions to be executed by a processor of instant claim 16 is obvious over the high throughput in silico method of claim 1 of the issued ‘998 patent. Conclusion No claims allowed. Claims 1-28 are free from the prior art because the prior art does not fairly suggest or teach the use of a machine learning model to predict a set of genetic variation conditions that are predicted to confer a greater degree of a desired phenotype co mpared to other combinations of genetic variations . The closest prior art is : Liu et al. ( Combinatorial and high-throughput screening approaches for strain engineering. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol . 99(5): 2093-2104 (2015) ). Liu et al. discloses an overview of several combinatorial engineering and high-throughput screening methods for strain optimization, including steps of library construction and phenotype analysis . However, Liu et al. does not teach a machine learning model for the analysis of phenotypes. Libbrecht et al. ( Machine learning applications in genetics and genomics. Nat Rev Genet 16, 321–332 (2015); provided in the IDS dated 6/29/2022 ). Libbrecht et al. discloses a review of machine learning application for analyzing genome sequencing data, including feature selection for identifying disease phenotypes . However, Libbrecht et al. does not teach the use of a machine learning model for predicting a set of genetic variations that have a greater degree of a desired phenotype compared to other genetic variations. Therefore , neither Liu et al. nor Libbrecht et al. te ach es the limitation of determining, using a machine learning model, a set of genetic variation combinations, from the plurality of genetic variations, that are predicted to confer a greater degree of a desired phenotype associated with the phenotypic performance metric than other combinations of genetic variations from the plurality of genetic variations , as disclosed in instant claim s 1, 10, 16, and 21 . Claims 2-9, 11-15, 17-20, and 22-28 are free from the prior art due to their dependency on claim s 1, 10, 16, and 21 . Inquiries Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DIANA P SANFORD whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6504 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 8am-5pm EST . 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 Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9047 . 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. /D.P.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 1687 /Karlheinz R. Skowronek/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1687