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 .
Applicant's response filed 6/30/2026 has been fully considered. The following rejections
and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is pending and examined on the merits.
Priority
The instant application filed on 7/7/2022 claims the benefit of foreign priority to Patent Application No. CN202110834402.1 filed on 7/23/2021. A "Certificate of Availability of a Certified Patent Document in a Digital Library" has been filed on 8/19/2022, however there is no English translated copy provided. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority; however, it is noted that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202110834402.1 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Therefore, until the application is perfected, the effective filing date of the instant application is 7/7/2022. Applicant has not addressed priority in their Remarks filed 6/30/2026.
The applicant is reminded that amendments to the claims and specification must comply with 35 U.S.C. § 120 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.121 to maintain priority to an earlier-filed application. Claim amendments may impact the effective filing date if new subject matter is introduced that lacks support in the originally filed disclosure. If an amendment adds limitations that were not adequately described in the parent application, the claim may no longer be entitled to the priority date of the earlier filing.
Specification
The objection to the specification withdrawn in view of Applicant's claim amendments and remarks filed on 6/30/2026.
Claim Objections
Some objections to claim 1 withdrawn in view of Applicant's claim amendments and remarks filed on 6/30/2026. The objections to claim 1 which are maintained are:
Claim 1 page 6 line 12, "wherein k is equal to 1, 2, 3..., M/2" should read "wherein k is equal to 1, 2, 3, ..., M/2".
Claim 1 page 10 line 1, "to obtain the tth generation salp populationYt" should read "to obtain the tth generation salp population Yt". Still missing the space between “population” and “Yt".
Newly made objection to claim 1 necessitated by claim amendment:
Claim 1 page 5 line 15, "and is generated a random function before each iteration" should read "and is generated by a random function before each iteration"
Withdrawn Rejections
35 USC § 112(b)
The rejections of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b) withdrawn in view of Applicant's claim amendments and remarks filed on 6/30/2026.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process, a mathematical concept, organizing human activity, or a law of nature or natural phenomenon without significantly more. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 101 contains newly recited portions necessitated by claim amendments. 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 1). In the instant application, the claims recite the following limitations that equate to an abstract idea:
Claim 1: “partitioning the microarray gene data set of the medical diseases" provides organizing information (partitioning a data set) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
"defining a first salp population Y" provides organizing information (defining a population) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
"setting a global optimum fitness value is best" provides organizing information (setting values) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
"setting a maximum time of an iteration of the first salp population T=50" provides organizing information (setting values) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
"performing a tth iteration on the first salp population" includes:
“iteratively generate, update, and evaluate the candidate gene feature selections for the microarray gene data set of the medical diseases based on the dimensionality values, fitness values, and classification accuracy” provides organization information, logical reasoning, and evaluation that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
"converting each dimensionality value of each individual in a (t-1)th generation first salp population Yt-1 into 0 or 1 via transfer functions shown in formulae (1)-(2)" provides a mathematical calculation (converting values requires using a mathematical [transfer] function) that is considered a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea.
"constructing feature subsets of each individual in the (t-1)th generation first salp population" provides organizing information (sub-setting data) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
"calculating fitness values of each individual in the (t-1)th generation first salp population by using a formula (3) and a formula (4)" provides a mathematical calculation (calculating fitness values requires mathematical calculation) that is considered a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea.
"updating the dimensionality values from a first individual to the M/2th individual in the tth generation binary salp population Bt by using a formula (5)" provides organizing information (updating values) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. The limitation also provides a mathematical calculation (updating values requires using the identified mathematical function) that is considered a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea.
"updating the dimensionality values from the (M/2+1)ᵗʰ individual to the Mth individual in the tth generation binary salp population Bt by using a formula (7)" provides organizing information (updating values) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. The limitation also provides a mathematical calculation (updating values requires using the identified mathematical function) that is considered a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea.
"calculating the fitness values of each individual in the tth generation initial salp population Ft by using a method same with those in the Steps 5.1-5.3" provides a mathematical calculation (calculating fitness values requires mathematical calculation) that is considered a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea.
"updating the tth generation initial salp population Ft by using formulae (8)-(16)" provides organizing information (updating values) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. The limitation also provides a mathematical calculation (updating values requires using the identified mathematical function) that is considered a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea.
"calculating the fitness values of the tth generation intermediate salp population Gt by using the method same with those in the Steps S5.1-5.3" provides a mathematical calculation (calculating fitness values requires mathematical calculation) that is considered a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea.
"comparing the minimum fitness value of the tth generation salp population Yt with the global optimum fitness value best" provides a comparison (comparing fitness values) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
"judging whether a current value of t is equal to T, if the current value of t is not equal to T, updating the value of t by using the current value of t plus 1, and then returning to the Step S5 for the next iteration; if the current value of t is equal to T, finishing the iteration process, determining columns with the dimensionality values of 1 from the first column to the nth column of the current global optimum individual best position, which is current" provides an evaluation (evaluating if values are equal to determine if iterations of the algorithm should continue or stop) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
These recitations are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations in 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 or are mathematical relationships. Therefore, these limitations fall under the “Mental process” and “Mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. As such, claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). The judicial exceptions listed above are not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite an additional element or elements that reflects an improvement to technology. Specifically, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1: “acquiring a microarray gene data set of medical diseases" provides insignificant extra-solution activities (obtaining data is a pre-solution activity involving data gathering steps) that do not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
"extracting the gene feature data in the microarray gene data set of the medical diseases in these columns correspondingly to form a selection data set" provides insignificant extra-solution activities (extracting data is a post-solution activity involving data gathering steps) that do not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
The steps for acquiring and extracting data are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not serve to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application because they are pre- and post-solution activities involving data gathering steps (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)). Additionally, the steps for applying these improvements for medical diagnosis restricts use to a particular environment or application without adding significant innovation, which does not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because they are post-solution activities involving a mere field of use (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) - Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application; MPEP 2106.05(g) - Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity; and MPEP 2106.05(h) - Field of Use and Technological Environment). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
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 are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not serve to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, or equate to mere instructions to apply the recited exception in a generic way or in a generic computing environment.
The limitations for acquiring and extracting data are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not serve to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application. Furthermore, no inventive concept is claimed by these limitations as they are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as MPEP 2106.05(f) states that the courts have found receiving and outputting data do not provide significantly more.
The 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 claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: No). As such, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/30/2026 are fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that "amended claim 1, as a whole, recites a specific ordered feature-selection process for a microarray gene data set of medical diseases" and therefore "is not directed merely to a mathematical concept in the abstract" (Remarks 6/30/2026 page 16). Examiner notes above that the amendment to claim 1 of "iteratively generate, update, and evaluate the candidate gene feature selections for the microarray gene data set of the medical diseases based on the dimensionality values, fitness values, and classification accuracy" provides organization information, logical reasoning, and evaluation that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
Applicant also asserts that "claim 1 integrated any alleged abstract idea into a practical application" because "the Salp Swarm Algorithm (SSA) may still have phenomena of local optimization and premature convergence when searching for feature subsets, thereby reducing selection accuracy" therefore there is a "need for an improved salp sawm algorithm that can solve the problems of locally optimal solution and low rate of convergence of the SSA, thereby achieving more precise and efficient classification and prediction of medical disease features" (Remarks 6/30/2026 page 17). Applicant further asserts that "[t]hese limitation do not merely use a computer as a tool to perform calculations [and rather,] the ordered combination improves the feature-selection technology applied to microarray gene data sets by reducing redundant or noisy gene features and by forming a dimensionality-reducing gene feature data set that supports more precise and efficient classification and prediction of medical disease feaures" (Remarks 6/30/2026 page 18). Applicant goes on to reiterate the improvements to the algorithm present in the claims. Examiner notes MPEP 2106.05(a) II: it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. the recited judicial exceptions including setting parameters, performing iterations and updates, calculating and comparing fitness values, etc.) is not an improvement in technology. Additionally, the steps for applying these improvements for medical diagnosis restricts use to a particular environment or application without adding significant innovation, which does not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because they are post-solution activities involving a mere field of use (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) - Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application; MPEP 2106.05(g) - Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity; and MPEP 2106.05(h) - Field of Use and Technological Environment).
Applicant asserts that, with respect to Step 2B, claim 1 "does not merely recite generic data collection or generic mathematical calculation" and goes on to list judicial exceptions recited in the claim (Remarks 6/30/2026 page 19). Examiner notes that in Step 2B, the conventionality of the abstract idea is not evaluated, and it is only the additional elements that are analyzed to determine if they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. are not well-understood, routine, or conventional). The Examiner also notes that MPEP 2106(I) states that if the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the second part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Id. citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). In the “search for an ‘inventive concept’” (the second part of the Alice/Mayo test), the additional elements identified 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 because acquiring and extracting data are well-understood, routine, and conventional techniques that are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not serve to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application. Therefore, combining insignificant extra-solution activities with any of the identified judicial exceptions would not result in patent eligible subject matter because integrating well-understood, routine, and conventional techniques does not yield “significantly more” to a mental process, a mathematical concept, organizing human activity, or a law of nature or natural phenomenon.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 TH REE-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 finaI action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A. Player whose telephone number is (571)272-6350. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-5pm.
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, Larry D. Riggs can be reached on 571-270-3062. 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.
/R.A.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/KAITLYN L MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1685
