DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response, filed 05/26/2026, has been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous Office Actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 11 are pending.
Claims 4-5 and 9-10 are canceled.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 11 are rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to India App. No. 20241015818, filed 03/22/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 06/01/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has therefore been considered. A signed copy of the IDS document is included with this Office Action.
Drawings
The Drawings submitted 06/01/2022 are accepted.
Claim Interpretation
The term “new viral RNA strain” is being interpreted as an RNA strain not in the reference data.
Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 112
The outstanding rejections to the claims are withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted herein. The amendments have clarified the comparison of two scores.
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.
For the following rejections, underlined text indicates newly recited portions necessitated by claim amendment.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to one or more judicial exceptions without significantly more. Any newly recited portions are necessitated by claim amendment.
MPEP 2106 organizes judicial exception analysis into Steps 1, 2A (Prongs One and Two) and 2B as follows below. MPEP 2106 and the following USPTO website provide further explanation and case law citations: uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials.
Framework with which to Evaluate Subject Matter Eligibility:
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter;
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application (Prong Two); and
Step 2B: If the claims do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
Framework Analysis as Pertains to the Instant Claims:
Step 1
With respect to Step 1: yes, the claims are directed to method, system, process, i.e., a process, machine, or manufacture within the above 101 categories [Step 1: YES; See MPEP § 2106.03].
Step 2A, Prong One
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite judicial exceptions in the form of abstract ideas. The MPEP at 2106.04(a)(2) further explains that abstract ideas are defined as:
mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations);
certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices or principles, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people); and/or
mental processes (procedures for observing, evaluating, analyzing/ judging and organizing information).
With respect to the instant claims, under the Step 2A, Prong One evaluation, the claims are found to recite abstract ideas that fall into the grouping of mental processes (in particular procedures for observing, analyzing and organizing information) and mathematical concepts (in particular mathematical relationships and formulas) are as follows:
Independent claims 1, 6, and 11:
determining, …, a similarity between a new viral RNA strain and one or more reference RNA strains;
calculating, …, a strain score for the new viral RNA strain based on the similarity between the new viral RNA strain and the one or more reference RNA strains;
identifying, …, one or more mutation sites for the new viral RNA strain by generating spatial nearness data corresponding to the one or more reference RNA strains based on comparison between the strain score of the new viral RNA strain and a strain score for the one or more reference RNA strains
ordering, …, sequences of each of the one or more reference RNA strains based on the spatial nearness data, wherein the spatial nearness data comprises a temporal similarity and a spatial similarity:
identifying, …, a pattern of the temporal similarity and the spatial similarity using an Artificial Intelligence (AI) based attention transformer model: and
identifying, …, the one or more mutation sites by identifying differences in the pattern:
predicting, …, one or more mutations of the new viral RNA strain by performing a generative modelling of a sequence of the new viral RNA strain with reference to the one or more mutation sites of the new viral RNA strain,
calculating, …, a vibrational entropy, wherein an overall structural stability of the mutated RNA sequence is checked to identify one or more stable mutations.
Dependent claims 2 and 7:
constructing,…, a plurality of suffix trees corresponding to the sequence of the new viral RNA strain and sequence of each of the one or more reference RNA strains;
determining, …, a match score for the new viral RNA strain by comparing the plurality of suffix trees
Dependent claims 3 and 8:
calculating, …, an infectivity score by weighing a match score between a viral RNA sequence of the new viral RNA strain and a reference RNA sequence of the one or more reference RNA strains with the infectivity metrics; calculating, …, a mortality score by weighing the match score between the viral RNA sequence of the new viral RNA strain and the reference RNA sequence of the one or more reference RNA strains with the mortality metrics;
calculating, …, a mortality score by weighing the match score between the viral RNA sequence of the new viral RNA strain and the reference RNA sequence of the one or more reference RNA strains with the mortality metrics
calculating, …, a normalized infectivity score by dividing the infectivity score with a sum of the infectivity metric data for the one or more reference RNA strains;
calculating, …, a normalized mortality score by dividing the mortality score with the sum of the mortality metric data for the one or more reference RNA strains;
determining, …, the strain score for the one or more reference RNA strains by normalizing the normalized infectivity score and the normalized mortality score using a Euclidean norm, and wherein: the infectivity metrics correspond to a Basic Reproduction Number (Ro) data of the one or more reference RNA strains from the earlier epidemics; and the mortality metrics correspond to Case Fatality Ratio (CFR) data of strains from earlier epidemics,
determining, …, the one or more reference RNA strains that resemble the new viral RNA strain based on the match score and the strain score;
identifying, …, top contributing structural proteins in the new viral RNA strain responsible for current characteristics of the new viral RNA strain based on one or more match proportions, the match score and the strain score.
Under the BRI, the instant claims recite judicial exceptions that are an abstract idea of the type that is in the grouping of a “mathematical concept”, such as mathematical relationships and mathematical equations.
The claims recite a mathematical concepts of determining a similarity, identifying one or more mutation sites for the new viral RNA strain by generating spatial nearness data, ordering sequences of each of the one or more reference RNA strains based on the spatial nearness data, identifying a pattern of the temporal similarity and the spatial similarity using an Artificial Intelligence (AI) based attention transformer model, identifying, the one or more mutation sites by identifying differences in the pattern, predicting, one or more mutations of the new viral RNA strain by performing a generative modelling, calculating a vibrational entropy, constructing a plurality of suffix trees, determining a match score, calculating an infectivity score by weighing a match score, calculating a mortality score, calculating a normalized infectivity score, calculating a normalized mortality score, determining the strain score for the one or more reference RNA strains by normalizing the normalized infectivity score and the normalized mortality score using a Euclidean norm, determining the one or more reference RNA strains that resemble the new viral RNA strain based on the match score and the strain score, and identifying top contributing structural proteins.
Therefore, claims 1, 6, and 11 and those claims dependent therefrom recite an abstract idea [Step 2A, Prong 1: YES; See MPEP § 2106.04].
Step 2A, Prong Two
Because the claims do recite judicial exceptions, direction under Step 2A, Prong Two, provides that the claims must be examined further to determine whether they integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). A claim can be said to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application when it applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is performed by analyzing the additional elements of the claim to determine if the judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).I.; MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the judicial exceptions, the claim is said to fail to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).III).
Additional elements, Step 2A, Prong Two
With respect to the instant recitations, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Independent claim 1:
prediction system
collecting, by the prediction system, a plurality of human RNA Binding Protein (RBP) data
Dependent claims 2 and 7:
collecting, by the prediction system, the sequence of the new viral RNA strain and a sequence of the one or more reference RNA strains
Dependent claims 3 and 8:
collecting, by the prediction system, an infectivity metrics and a mortality metrics of the one or more reference RNA strains from earlier epidemics
The claims also include non-abstract computing elements. For example, independent claims 1, 6, and 11 include a prediction system, processor, memory, and non -transitory media.
Considerations under Step 2A, Prong Two
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements of the claims do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application for the following reasons. Those steps directed to data gathering, such as “collecting” perform functions of collecting the data needed to carry out the judicial exceptions. Data gathering and outputting do not impose any meaningful limitation on the judicial exceptions, or on how the judicial exceptions are performed. Data gathering and outputting steps are not sufficient to integrate judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Further steps directed to additional non-abstract elements of “prediction system, processor, memory, and non -transitory media “do not describe any specific computational steps by which the “computer parts” perform or carry out the judicial exceptions, nor do they provide any details of how specific structures of the computer, such as the computer-readable recording media, are used to implement these functions. The claims state nothing more than a generic computer which performs the functions that constitute the judicial exceptions. Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions using a computer, and therefore the claim does not integrate that judicial exceptions into a practical application. The courts have weighed in and consistently maintained that when, for example, a memory, display, processor, machine, etc.… are recited so generically (i.e., no details are provided) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer, and these limitations may be viewed as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, none of the claims recite additional elements which would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to one or more judicial exceptions [Step 2A, Prong 2: NO; See MPEP § 2106.04(d)].
Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05.A i-vi)
According to analysis so far, the additional elements described above do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. A determination of whether additional elements provide significantly more also rests on whether the additional elements or a combination of elements represents other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Conventionality is a question of fact and may be evidenced as: a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
With respect to the instant claims, the courts have found that receiving and outputting data are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer when claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
As such, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (MPEP2106.05(d)). The data gathering steps as recited in the instant claims constitute a general link to a technological environment which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept which would render the claims significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP2106.05(g)&(h)).
With respect to claims 1, 6, and 11 and those claims dependent therefrom, the computer-related elements or the general purpose computer do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims state nothing more than a generic computer which performs the functions that constitute the judicial exceptions. Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions using a computer, which the courts have found to not provide significantly more when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.06(A)). The specification also notes that computer processors and systems, as example, are commercially available or widely used at [0006, 0022, 0034-0036, 0060, 0063-0068]. The additional elements are set forth at such a high level of generality that they can be met by a general purpose computer. Therefore, the computer components constitute no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than the judicial exceptions (see MPEP 2106.05(b)I-III).
Taken 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; See MPEP § 2106.05].
Therefore, the instant claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to one or more judicial exceptions without significantly more. For additional guidance, applicant is directed generally to the MPEP § 2106.
Response to Applicant Arguments
1. Applicant submits that the claims are directed to a specific technical solution to the problem of early identification and prediction of biologically viable mutations in viral RNA strains, and not to any abstract scientific or mental concept, through a series of computer-implemented steps involving structured acquisition of RNA sequence data and epidemiological metrics from distributed biological databases, suffix tree-based sequence comparison for determining similarity, computation of strain scores using normalized infectivity and mortality metrics, spatial-temporal modeling of reference RNA strains, machine learning based pattern identification using an attention transformer model, and generative modeling of mutated RNA sequences further validated through thermodynamic computation of vibrational entropy to ensure structural stability, all performed without human intervention [p. 12, par. 3-p. 13, par. 1].
The applicant arguments are found persuasive. The limitations do not recite methods of organizing human activity, however as disclosed by the applicant those steps are directed to mathematical concepts as it relies on complex bioinformatics processing, machine learning architectures, and molecular stability computations that are beyond manual execution. As mathematical concepts are an abstract idea those limitations are still considered a judicial exception.
2. Applicant submits the pending claims do not recite a mere mathematical concept, but rather to a specific technical method implemented in connection with a computer-based prediction system that processes complex biological RNA sequence data, performs spatial-temporal modeling using AI based transformer model, and generates structurally validated mutation predictions through generative modeling and thermodynamic analysis, thereby providing a concrete technological solution to the problem of accurate mutation prediction in bioinformatics systems [p. 15, par. 3].
It is found not persuasive. Applicant submits certain steps involve determining match scores, normalizing infectivity and mortality metrics, and computing strain scores using a Euclidean norm and the steps apply these computations within a concrete and structured pipeline that includes suffix tree-based sequence comparison, AI-based pattern recognition using attention transformer models, biologically constrained generative modeling using RBP interaction data, and thermodynamic validation of predicted mutations, which are all mathematical concepts.
3. Applicant submits the claims are directed to a specific, practical technological solution implemented via a defined system architecture, and therefore cannot be characterized as being directed to a mathematical concept [p. 16, par. 3].
It is respectfully found not persuasive. The classification of a judicial exception is not based on a technological solution. Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I).
4. Applicant submits the currently amended claim 1 recites subject matter directed to a technical improvement in computer-based bioinformatics systems wherein raw biological data in the form of viral RNA sequences, reference strain data, and experimentally derived RNA-protein interaction datasets are transformed through a structured and multi-stage computational pipeline into biologically meaningful and structurally validated mutation predictions [p. 18, par. 1].
It is respectfully found not persuasive. The improvement is to data analysis leading to a enhancing prediction accuracy, reliability, and practical applicability in mutation prediction systems as stated by the applicant [p. 20, par. 2]. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. Furthermore, it is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements or by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The amended claims recite data gathering and general computer components as the only additional elements which are deemed not sufficient to integrate judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
5. Applicant submits similar to the self-referential table in Enfish, which improved the way computers store and retrieve data, the Applicant's claims are directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality namely, improving the functioning of bioinformatics systems for mutation prediction through advanced AI-driven and biologically grounded computational techniques [p. 20, par. 3].
With respect to Applicant's arguments related to Enfish, and whether the claims involve, or recite a judicial exception, those arguments are not persuasive. "The disputed claims in Enfish were patent-eligible because they were "directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, embodied in [a] self-referential table." Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. The court found that the "plain focus of the claims" there was on an improvement to computer functionality itself-a self-referential table for a computer database, designed to improve the way a computer carries out its basic functions of storing and retrieving data- not on a task for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity. Id. at 1335-36. The court noted that the specification identified additional benefits conferred by the self-referential table (e.g., increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements), which further supported the court's conclusion that the claims were directed to an improvement of an existing technology. Id. at 1337 (citation omitted).
In contrast, the rejected claims do not clearly provide an improvement to computer functionality itself, and the general-purpose computer as recited merely carries out basic functions in its ordinary capacity. No evidence is of record that the claimed method improves any specific aspect of computer functionality."
6. Applicant submits similar to the system configuration discussed in BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, the inventive concept of the present claims lies in the nonconventional and ordered combination of these limitations.
With respect to Applicant's arguments related to BASCOM, in BASCOM, the claims recited a "specific method of filtering Internet content" requiring "the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user." BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1345--46, 1350. The installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user, provided an inventive concept in that it gave the filtering tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server. Id. at 1350.
Applicant fails to explain sufficiently and persuasively how claim 1 is analogous to these cases. We find no analogous non-conventional, non- generic arrangement of known, conventional physical elements within a computer system. That is the claim does not recite any physical element positioned in an unconventional manner in the system.
7. Applicant submits the claimed limitations are directed to a technical solution rooted in computer-based bioinformatics systems to overcome limitations in conventional mutation prediction techniques, which fail to accurately identify biologically viable and structurally stable mutations [p. 24, par. 1].
The examiner acknowledges Applicant’s arguments which set forth that the claims lead to an improvement in mutation prediction techniques. According to the guidance set forth in MPEP 2106, this is an improvement to the judicial exception itself, and is not reflected back into a specific technological environment or practically applied process.
An improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in the technology. For example, in In re Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, 989 F.3d 1367, 1370, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (Stanford I), Applicant argued that the claimed process was an improvement over prior processes because it ‘‘yields a greater number of haplotype phase predictions,’’ but the Court found it was not ‘‘an improved technological process’’ and instead was an improved ‘‘mathematical process.’’ The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they describe ‘‘mathematically calculating alleles’ haplotype phase,’’ like the ‘‘mathematical algorithms for performing calculations’’ in prior cases. Notably, the Federal Circuit found that the claims did not reflect an improvement to a technological process, which would render the claims eligible (FR89 no.137, p58137, 7/17/2024).
8. Applicant submits the claims provide tangible technical benefits, including improved mutation prediction accuracy, generation of biologically constrained and experimentally relevant mutations, enhanced structural reliability of predicted RNA sequences, and reduced computational and experimental inefficiencies in downstream vaccine development [p. 26, par. 2].
It is respectfully found not persuasive. As stated in the previous office action and repeated in the current action the additional element of collecting data which is receiving data are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer when claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity. The computer-related elements or the general purpose computer do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims state nothing more than a generic computer which performs the functions that constitute the judicial exceptions. Therefore, the computer components constitute no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than the judicial exceptions (see MPEP 2106.05(b)I-III).
9. Applicant submits the Office has not provided any specific evidence, as required under Berkheimer v. HP Inc., to demonstrate that the claimed combination of elements is well-understood, routine, and conventional [p. 27, par. 1].
With respect to Applicant's arguments regarding step 2B, and whether the examiner met the burden presented by Berkheimer, this argument is not persuasive. Activities such as data gathering do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field. The limitations do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not effect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide an unconventional step (citing McRO and Trading Technologies Int'l v. IBG). Data gathering steps constitute a general link to a technological environment. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception are insufficient to provide significantly more (as discussed in Alice Corp.,).
The receipt of data does not improve the functioning of a computer. The receipt of data does not comprise an improvement to any other technical field. The receipt of the data does not require a particular machine. Receipt of data is not an unconventional step. Receipt of data, generated by an encoder assay, is a general link to the technological environment of high throughput polypeptide sequencing. The receipt of data was shown to be routine, well-understood and conventional, even in the art of high throughput polypeptide sequencing, and encoder assays. The receipt of the data does not present any unconventional process or data structure. This is insufficient to provide significantly more than the identified JE.
The computer-related elements or the general purpose computer do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims state nothing more than a generic computer which performs the functions that constitute the judicial exceptions. Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions using a computer, which the courts have found to not provide significantly more when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.06(A)) and the specification addressed in the above 101 rejection.
10. Applicant submits the Office fails to form a prima facie case of subject matter ineligibility because it does not provide any evidence that any limitations are "well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the art." [p. 28, par. 1].
It is respectfully found not persuasive. The courts have found that receiving and outputting data are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer when claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
The computer-related elements or the general purpose computer do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims state nothing more than a generic computer which performs the functions that constitute the judicial exceptions. Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions using a computer, which the courts have found to not provide significantly more when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.06(A)). The specification also notes that computer processors and systems, as example, are commercially available or widely used at [0006, 0022, 0034-0036, 0060, 0063-0068].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The outstanding rejections to the claims are withdrawn in view of the amendments and remarks submitted herein. The prior art does not disclose wherein calculating the strain score for the new viral RNA strain comprises: collecting, by the prediction system, an infectivity metrics and a mortality metrics of the one or more reference RNA strains from earlier epidemics; calculating, by the prediction system, an infectivity score by weighing a match score between a viral RNA sequence of the new viral RNA strain and a reference RNA sequence of the one or more reference RNA strains with the infectivity metrics; calculating, by the prediction system, a mortality score by weighing the match score between the viral RNA sequence of the new viral RNA strain and the reference RNA sequence of the one or more reference RNA strains with the mortality metrics; calculating, by the prediction system, a normalized infectivity score by dividing the infectivity score with a sum of the infectivity metric data for the one or more reference RNA strains; calculating, by the prediction system, a normalized mortality score by dividing the mortality score with the sum of the mortality metric data for the one or more reference RNA strains; determining, by the prediction system, the strain score for the one or more reference RNA strains by normalizing the normalized infectivity score and the normalized mortality score using a Euclidean norm, and wherein: the infectivity metrics corresponds to a Basic Reproduction Number (Ro) data of the one or more reference RNA strains from the earlier epidemics; and the mortality metrics corresponds to Case Fatality Ratio (CFR) data of strains from earlier epidemics, and wherein, calculating the strain score for the new viral RNA strain further comprises: determining, by the prediction system, the one or more reference RNA strains that resemble the new viral RNA strain based on the match score and the strain score; and identifying, by the prediction system, top contributing structural proteins in the new viral RNA strain responsible for current characteristics of the new viral RNA strain based on one or more match proportions, the match score and the strain score directed to forward-looking predictive framework that generates and validates future mutations with biological and structural constraints.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Bickham whose telephone number (703)756-1817. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Olivia Wise can be reached on (571)272-2249. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1685
/Soren Harward/Primary Examiner, TC 1600
Prosecution Insights