DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's response, filed 2 June 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous Office Actions are hereby withdrawn.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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and under exam herein.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 have been amended herein.
Specification
Note: All references to the Specification herein pertain to the PG publication: US20220399078A1.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites, “receiving a selection of group of genomes” wherein the recitation is grammatically incorrect and should be amended to recite, “receiving a selection of a group of genomes”. It is assumed that this is a typographical error, as the claims 7 and 13 are correct. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 6, 12, and 18 fail to further limit the independent claims 1, 7, and 13 respectively because said claims recite, “wherein the visualization further comprises a taxonomic tree that dynamically scans and zooms with the heat map panel” and wherein the independent claims are limited as such at the step that recites, “displaying a visualization comprising the heat map panel and the taxonomic tree, wherein the taxonomic tree dynamically scans and zooms with the visual heat map”. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The instant rejection reflects the framework as outlined in the MPEP at 2106.04:
Framework with which to Evaluate Subject Matter Eligibility:
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter;
(2A) Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
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
(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 Analysis: Are claims directed to process, machine, manufacture/composition of matter
With respect to step (1): Claims 1-6 and 13-18 are directed to a method and a system.
Claims 7-12 are not directed to a proper class of invention (either process, machine, manufacture/composition of matter) because said claims recite “a computer program product”. Therefore the claims read on carrier waves which are non-statutory which read on transitory propagating signals which are not proper patentable subject matter because they do not fit within any of the four statutory categories of invention (In re Nuijten, Federal. Circuit, 2006). It is noted that the recitation of a "non-transitory computer-readable medium" would overcome the rejection as pertains to this matter. However, the claims would still be subject to the rejections below and are included herein for purposes of compact prosecution, under the assumption that amendment is forthcoming.
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis: Do claims recite abstract idea
With respect to step (2A)(1), the claims recite 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 (2A)(1) evaluation, the claims are found herein to recite abstract ideas that fall into the grouping of mental processes (in particular procedures for observing, analyzing and organizing information) and in conjunction with mathematical concepts (in particular mathematical relationships).
The claim steps to abstract ideas are as follows:
Claims 1, 7, and 13: generating, by the at least one processor a matrix based on a plurality of sequence- sequence distances for the group of genomes; generating, by the at least one processor, clusters by performing hierarchical clustering on the matrix; creating a taxonomic tree based on the clusters; sorting elements of the matrix based on an order of leaf nodes of the taxonomic tree; rendering the matrix with the sorted elements as a visual heat map… identifying nearest reference genomes to a target genome by: receiving, as input, a set of target sequences; measuring a whole genome-genome distance between a member of the set of target sequences and the elements of the matrix; adding the genome-genome distances of the target sequence and the elements of the matrix to the matrix, generating a first overlay highlighting one or more portions of the visual heat map, wherein the one or more portions highlighted by the first overlay include all genomes that contain the target sequence; and generating a second overlay highlighting one or more genomes of the taxonomic tree, wherein steps directed to generating a matrix, generating clusters, creating taxonomic trees, sorting elements in a matrix, measuring genome-genome distances, adding distances, are directed to mathematical operations whereby the instant Specification details that a matrix is represented by Mij and wherein distances are positive integers I and j and the process may be implemented by utilizing algorithms such as MinHash or Meier-Kolthoff methodologies [0065]. Further, steps of generating a heat map panel are nothing more than making selections of data and using a computer as a tool to perform color coordination (heat map). One could also do this via colored pencil, as there are no steps to further detail the elements of said generation and under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the claim this claim step is abstract. This is true of the steps of highlighting, also under the BRI which is a step that can be done mentally with pen and paper and by overlaying a translucent piece of material. Further steps directed to highlighting another genome is similarity an abstract step.
Dependent claims herein further limit the abstract steps such as in claims 2, 8, and 14 further distance; claims 3, 9, and 15 directed to highlighting; claims 4, 10, and 16 directed to highlighting; claims 6, 12, and 18 including taxonomic tree visualization that is a mental operation.
Hence, the claims explicitly recite numerous elements that, individually and in combination, constitute abstract ideas.
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) and determined herein to each cover performance either in the mind (calculations by hand or pen and paper) and/or performance by mathematical operation (taxonomy). The instant claims are analogous to an abstract idea in the form of at least a mental process, equivalent to a computer-implemented process, including obtaining and comparing intangible data (e.g. Cybersource, Synopsys and Electric Power Group). Under the BRI herein, it is not clear that the claim embodiments are limited so as to require complexity precluding analogy to a mental process. One could simply, for example, perform said operation with pen and paper, or, alternatively with the aid of a generic computer as a tool to perform said calculations. These recitations are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and providing certain results from the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations (Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) 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 with pen and paper, and can include mathematical concepts.
Further, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation (see, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674: noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016): holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind" (see Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016): holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis: Integration to a Practical Application
Because the claims do recite judicial exceptions, direction under (2A)(2) provides that the claims must be examined further to determine whether they integrate the abstract ideas 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 abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).I.; MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the abstract idea, the claim is said to fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).III).
With respect to the instant recitations, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claims 1, 7, and 13: receiving a selection of a group of genomes; displaying a visualization comprising the heat map panel; computer; processor; system; memory
Claims 5, 11, and 17: providing a metadata window for display in response to placing a pointer on the heat map, wherein the metadata window shows information about two genomes at the location
Further with respect to the additional elements in the instant claims, those steps directed to data gathering (receiving selection of a group of genomes) perform functions of collecting the data needed to carry out the abstract idea. Data gathering does not impose any meaningful limitation on the abstract idea, or on how the abstract idea is performed. Data gathering steps are not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the system, processor, memory, instructions, and window display are part of a general purpose computer system and there are no details herein wherein of how the specific computer structures are used to implement the judicial exceptions beyond generic computing operations, i.e., the computer elements of the claims do not provide improvements to the functioning of the computer itself (see: DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com LP); they do not provide improvements to any other technology or technical field (see: Diamond v. Diehr); nor do they utilize a particular machine (see: Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co.). Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer, and therefore the claim does not provide integration into a practical application of any judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: Do Claims Provide an Inventive Concept
The claims are lastly evaluated using the (2B) analysis, wherein it is determined that because the claims recite abstract ideas, and do not integrate that abstract ideas into a practical application, the claims also lack a specific inventive concept. Applicant is reminded that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the inventive concept or the practical application and that the identification of whether the additional elements amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05.A i-vi).
With respect to the instant claims, the additional elements of data gathering described above do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As directed in the Berkheimer memorandum of 19 April 2018 and set forth in the MPEP, determinations of whether or not additional elements (or a combination of additional elements) may provide significantly more and/or an inventive concept rests in whether or not the additional elements (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Said assessment is made by a factual determination stemming from a conclusion that an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry, which is determined by either a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
With respect to the instant claims, receiving data in the form of genomes for display is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity. For example, the prior art to Arakawa et al. (BMC Bioinformatics (2009) Vol. 3;10 pages) disclose molecular biology data scaled into layers that include data such as genome, proteome, metabolome, biochemical pathways and the like (abstract). Further, the prior art discloses genome data in the context of map generations (p. 2). Further the prior art to Babiki et al. (Nucleic Acids Research (2016) Vol. 44:W147-W153-IDS reference) discloses getting various data for heatmapping applications, such as molecular biological data (p. W147).
With respect to the claims to the system and processor, memory and instruction, the computer-related elements or the general purpose computer do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. Further, the specification discloses that computer processors and systems, as example, are generic computing systems [0083]-[0093]. 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 an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(b)I-III).
The dependent claims have been analyzed with respect to step 2B and none of these claims provide a specific inventive concept, as they all fail to rise to the level of significantly more than the identified judicial exception. For these reasons, the claims, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole, are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
1. Applicant states that, “claim 1's features are integrated into the practical
application of a of providing a technical solution to the technical problem described in paragraph
[0053] of the specification: ‘Whole genome distances may be rendered as a heat map. A matrix of 360,000x360,000 genomes, however, is too large to render on a display or in a simple static image - thus limiting its practical use for exploratory design or diagnostic applications embodiment provides a dynamic viewer tool that provides for user visualization in a dynamic, zoomable fashion, the genomic distance between a set of genomes, the genomic distance between target(s) and a large database of genomes for diagnostic test, microbiological test, clinical test, test design applications, etc.’”
Further Applicant states that, “The claim provides a method for determining and displaying a relative difference between an additional genome, such as a genome for a target sample of a diagnostic exercise, and genomes from a reference database group of genomes. The method provides a visual indication of the relative separation between the genome of the target sample and the reference genomes, thereby providing an indication as to the genetic similarity between the target material and the respective reference materials. As illustrated in Fig. 13 and described in paragraph [0073] of the application, the target genomes Gi and Gj, at location x,y of the heat map overlay the overlay 1330 of listeria and not the overlay 1340 of Klebsiella, providing the practical indication that the target sample is more related to listeria. As such, for at least the reasons discussed above, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea”.
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive. First, with respect to the integration of a practical application as it pertains to the cited paragraph [0053], the claim limitations that pertain to said paragraph herein are directed to judicial exceptions (as outlined above). For a practical application in the claim, one looks to the additional elements to provide such. However, the claims herein recite only additional elements that are pre-solution data gathering steps (receiving data) and post-solution activity such as “display” on generic computing systems. See MPEP at 2106.05(g). As such, there are no additional elements herein to provide for a practical application in the claim.
Applicant is directed to the MPEP at 2106.04(d) which provides that, “ The Supreme Court has long distinguished between principles themselves (which are not patent eligible) and the integration of those principles into practical applications (which are patent eligible). See, e.g., Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 80, 84, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968-69, 1970 (2012) (noting that the Court in Diamond v. Diehr found ‘‘the overall process patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process integrated the equation into the process as a whole,’’ but the Court in Gottschalk v. Benson ‘‘held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle’’). Similarly, in a growing body of decisions, the Federal Circuit has distinguished between claims that are ‘‘directed to’’ a judicial exception (which require further analysis to determine their eligibility) and those that are not (which are therefore patent eligible), e.g., claims that improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.06(b) (summarizing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016), McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and other cases that were eligible as improvements to technology or computer functionality instead of being directed to abstract ideas).” It is further noted that the consideration includes, “because a judicial exception alone is not eligible subject matter, if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. However, the way in which the additional elements use or interact with the exception may integrate it into a practical application. In the instant claims, the recited additional elements provide only pre-solution functionality such as “receive a selection of a group of genomes (data-MPEP 2105(g))” and “displaying”, “computer program product”, “memory” and “processor” (generic computing components-see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
It is last noted that the claims herein are not directed to any particular application such as directed to a specific indication as relates to a specific identification using any specific sequences as may be “target genomes Gi and Gj, at location x,y of the heat map overlay the overlay 1330 of listeria and not the overlay 1340 of Klebsiella”. Nor are the instant claims directed to any particular machine.
As such, the claims remain rejected as directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
1. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisen (Cluster and TreeView Manual; software manual copyright Stanford University 1998-1999; 20 pages-IDS document) in further view of Babicki et al. (Nucleic Acids Research (2016) Vol. 44; web service issue:W147-W153-IDS document). This rejection is newly recited and is necessitated by claim amendment herein.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are directed to a method, a computer program product, and a system for:
receiving a selection of a group of genomes;
generating, by an at least one processor, a matrix based on a plurality of sequence- sequence distances for the group of genomes (Eisen; page 10-computing distances between pairs of items, e.g., genes, before clustering); (Eisen; pages 4-6);
generating, by the at least one processor, clusters by performing hierarchical clustering on the matrix (Eisen; pages 9-12);
creating a taxonomic tree based on the clusters (Eisen; page 13 teaching ordering of the output file in a tree structure, applicable to any given tree);
sorting elements of the matrix based on an order of leaf nodes of the taxonomic tree; rendering the matrix with the sorted elements as a visual heat map (Eisen; page 13 teaching ordering of the output file in a tree structure, applicable to any given tree);
displaying a visualization comprising the heat map panel and the taxonomic tree, wherein the taxonomic tree dynamically scans and zooms with the visual heat map; and identifying nearest reference genomes to a target genome by (Eisen; page 19 showing the TreeView output file wherein a taxonomic tree and heat map of gene expression are displayed):
receiving, as input, a set of target sequences;
measuring a whole genome-genome distance between a member of the set of target sequences and the elements of the matrix;
adding the genome-genome distances of the target sequence and the elements of the matrix to the matrix (Eisen; page 19 showing the TreeView output file wherein a taxonomic tree and heat map of gene expression are displayed; It is recognized that Eisen does not specifically disclose the dynamic scanning and zooming, as claimed. See below.);
generating a first overlay highlighting one or more portions of the visual heat map, wherein the one or more portions highlighted by the first overlay include all genomes that contain the target sequence; and
generating a second overlay highlighting one or more genomes of the taxonomic tree.
Eisen does not specifically outline the details pertaining to heat mapping that includes the steps as now claimed. However, the prior art to Babicki et al. describes Heatmapper software allowing users to generate heat maps using data-matrices in a variety of settings, such as gene/protein/metabolite expression mapping wherein heat mapping functions include customization with image overlay (pages W147; W148). Babicki et al. further disclose particulars that include Heatmapper features such as the support of different classes of heat maps that include (i) data-matrix heat maps, including expression heat maps such as used by those doing gene, protein and/or metabolite expression analysis in molecular biology, bioinformatics and “omics” arenas (page W148) and (ii) pairwise comparison maps, including those used in genetics, statistics and taxonomic disciplines.
The “custom” mapping for each type of heat map generation is visualized in the same manner wherein a sidebar is customized to the specific type of heat map, including specific selection widgets, such as sliders and drop down menus to customize said maps. Color customization is described at W149, as is zooming functionality. Figure 1 exemplifies taxonomic data and heat map visualization wherein magnification increases and provides for a portion of the taxonomic and heat map data (montage at bottom left depiction that includes red and green color depiction of genetic data (two colors)). The “input” data to said system can be in the form as generated by expression analytics tools. Viewing features are facilitated by heat map layers wherein opacity can be adjusted for the overlaid data and includes background image stretching and other functions (W151). Features of Heatmapper are further disclosed at Table 1 and Table 2.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the online heat map web server, Heatmapper, with the data provided from the methodology disclosed in Eisen, as Babicki et al. specifically teach that “Heatmapper allows users to quickly create a wide variety of heap maps for different data types…[that include]…correlation matrices; image overlay…expression-based heat maps from transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic experiments”. Furthermore, Babicki et al. also include the techniques known in the art of heat mapping that include performing hierarchical clustering and matrix sorting into taxonomic trees (W150). Thus, using methodologies for generation of clustering trees, as described in Eisen would have been obvious. It would have been further prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included gene data as metadata, as described in Eisen with the further improvement realized using the Heatmapping functions as disclosed further in Babicki et al. One would have been motivated to do so because Babicki et al. provide that using Heatmapper is provided for ease of use and understanding by both specialists and non-specialists in the field and make the interface easier to use in a wide variety of applications (W148). Thus, combining the known methods would have presented the artisan with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to the computer aspects as claimed in claims 1, 7, and 13, both Eisen and Babicki et al. are directed to software tools for data analysis and heat mapping.
With respect to claims 2, 8, and 14, the prior art to Babicki et al. disclose distance mapping (abstract; W148, col. 2; W150, col. 1).
With respect to claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 15 and 16, the prior art to Babicki et al. disclose highlighting of data that is customizable, which would fairly include doing so simultaneously as users can customize the number of shades and select for low and high values (W149, col. 1; W150, col. 1).
With respect to claims 5, 11, and 17, the prior art to Babicki et al. disclose providing a metadata window wherein a pointer hover shows information about one or more genomes at the location (Figure 1).
With respect to claims 6, 12, and 18 said limitations have been addressed above and further, Babicki et al. detail image overlay processes at W150, col. 2-W151, col. 1.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments have respectfully been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth above and as necessitated by claim amendments herein.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The rejections over 35 USC 112(b) in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments submitted herein.
The prior art rejections over 35 USC 103 as pertained to Arakawa et al. in view of Zhao et al. cited in the previous Office Action are withdrawn. As new grounds of rejection is set forth above.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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
Papers related to this application may be submitted to Technical Center 1600 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Technical Center 1600 via the PTO Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notices published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (November 15, 1988), 1156 OG 61 (November 16, 1993), and 1157 OG 94 (December 28, 1993) (See 37 CFR § 1.6(d)). The Central Fax Center Number is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lori A. Clow, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0715. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 11:00AM to 9:00PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached on (571) 272-9047.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to (571) 272-0547.
Patent applicants with problems or questions regarding electronic images that can be viewed in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system (PAIR) can now contact the USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business Center (Patent EBC) for assistance. Representatives are available to answer your questions daily from 6 am to midnight (EST). The toll free number is (866) 217-9197. When calling please have your application serial or patent number, the type of document you are having an image problem with, the number of pages and the specific nature of the problem. The Patent Electronic Business Center will notify applicants of the resolution of the problem within 5-7 business days. Applicants can also check PAIR to confirm that the problem has been corrected. The USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business Center is a complete service center supporting all patent business on the Internet. The USPTO’s PAIR system provides Internet-based access to patent application status and history information. It also enables applicants to view the scanned images of their own application file folder(s) as well as general patent information available to the public.
/Lori A. Clow/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights