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 .
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 1-10 are pending.
Claims 1-10 are under examination.
Claims 1-10 are rejected.
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application, PCT/KR2020/019385, filed 12/30/2020, is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to Korean App. No. 10-2020-003218 , filed 01/09/2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Accordingly, each of claims 1-10 are afforded the effective filing date of 01/09/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 07/08/2022 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 07/08/2022 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 6, limitation recites “introverted feature information” and “introverted condition information”. It is unclear what “introverted feature information” and “introverted condition information” encompass which makes the claim indefinite. Claim(s) 2-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected for the same reason because they depend from claims 1 and 6, respectively, and do not resolve the indefiniteness issue in those claims.
Claims 4 and 9, limitation, recites “of at least one genetic disease risk information [... ] based on [... ] genetic disease risk information itself”. It is unclear how to derive any kind of at present unknown information from exactly said at present unknown information which makes this claim indefinite. Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected for the same reason because they depend from claims 4 and 9, respectively, and do not resolve the indefiniteness issue in those claims.
Claims 5 and 10 recites “heterogeneity of a major histocompatibility complex (MHC) gene”. It is unclear what “heterogeneity” of a gene is, or how it’s quantified.
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.
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
With respect to claims 1-10, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they recite software. Therefore, the claims read on products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations. It is noted that , a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hodnett et al. (US20070174253A1, published 07/26/2007, cited on IDS dated 07/08/2022).
Claims 1 and 6 are directed to a pet genome-based matchmaking social network system, comprising:
Hodnett discloses internet-based marketplace is provided for animals, gametes and embryos wherein a database retains specific genetic identifiers correlated to the animals, embryos and gametes [abstract]. Hodnett further discloses the user can submit a query to the database containing genetic or non-genetic identifier data causing compiling of a report identifying a matching animal, embryo or gamete. [0051].
a gene analyzer that provides gene analysis information through gene analysis using a specimen collected from a pet;
Hodnett discloses a cat owner swabs the inside of a cat’s mouth to collect cells, transfer the cells to an FTA card, and send the card to BioArts for DNA analysis [0097].
a bioinformatics information analyzer that provides at least one of genetic variation feature information, external feature information, and introverted feature information that appears upon breeding through bioinformatic analysis based on the gene analysis information;
Hodnett discloses after DNA analysis, detailed cat breed profile reports become available to cat owners [0097]. Hodnett further discloses DNA tests that identify specific genetic mutations that cause disease are made available to cat breeders [0084]. Hodnett also discloses these tests identify an animal’s genotypic status and can reduce inherited disease from breeding programs [0084]. Hodnett further discloses CatBank offers the Feline PKD Test. Polycystic Kidney Disease is a progressive disease that manifests slowly, enlarges kidneys, reduces kidney function and ultimately results in organ failure [0085]. Hodnett also discloses PKD is caused by a known gene mutation, readily identified through DNA testing [0085]..
a basic information input unit that receives user basic information about an owner of the pet and genetic feature information and non-genetic feature information about the pet from the owner of the pet;
Hodnett discloses the descriptive datum associated with the animal, embryo or gamete is DNA ID, date of birth, gender, animal type, coat color, microchip number, tattoo number, image, certificate number, geographic location, available tag, feedlot location, feed formula, production data, border crossings, shipping data, financial transaction data, vaccination data, medical record data, or storage data [claim 7].
a database unit that collects and stores information obtained and inputted through the gene analyzer, the bioinformatics information analyzer, and the basic information input unit; and
Hodnett discloses a data store comprising a database comprising at least one gene identifier and a non-gene identifier corresponding to at least one registration ID, wherein each registration ID corresponds to an animal, an embryo or a gonad [claim 20].
a pet matching recommendation unit that receives a matching request from a matching applicant, receives at least one condition information among genetic condition information, non-genetic condition information, external condition information, and introverted condition information about a desired matching target to recommend a pet with a highest degree of matching with the condition information among the information stored in the database unit or obtains analysis information through the genetic analyzer and the biogenetics information analyzer using a specimen collected from the matching applicant's pet to recommend a pet with a highest degree of matching with the analysis information among the information stored in the database unit.
Hodnett discloses it is possible to determine which kittens are breeding candidates and which to place into non-breeding situations, with the ultimate goal of breeding only genetically normal parents that produce normal kittens [0084].
Claims 2 and 7 are directed to the pet genome-based matchmaking social network system of claim 1, further comprising an epigenetic analyzer that provides growth and physiological expression feature information about the pet through epigenetic analysis using the specimen collected from the pet, wherein the database unit additionally collects and stores the growth and physiological expression feature information.
Hodnett discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the gene identifier corresponds to breed type, pedigree, predisposition to disease, and physical conformation [claim 2].
Claims 3 and 8 are directed to the pet genome-based matchmaking social network … wherein the growth and physiological expression feature information includes information according to a result of a structural change in chromatin due to DNA methylation or histone protein modification.
Hodnett discloses protein analysis can include, for example, immunoassay, peptide sequencing, and electrophoresis [0055].
Claims 4 and 9 are directed to the pet genome-based matchmaking social network …, wherein the pet matching recommendation unit analyzes, predicts, and additionally provides at least one of genetic disease risk information for each pet based on the information stored in the database unit and virtual external feature information, introverted feature information, health feature information, physical feature information, genetic disease risk information, and growth and physiological expression feature information for offspring resultant from breeding with a recommended pet.
Hodnett discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the gene identifier corresponds to breed type, pedigree, predisposition to disease, and physical conformation [claim 2].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
A. Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodnett in view of Ujvari et al. (Ujvari, Beata, and Katherine Belov. "Major histocompatibility complex (MHC) markers in conservation biology." International Journal of Molecular Sciences 12.8 (2011): 5168-5186, newly cited).
Claims 5 and 10 are directed to the pet genome-based matchmaking social network system of claim 4, wherein the pet matching recommendation unit calculates a breeding fitness between pets according to a heterogeneity of a major histocompatibility complex (MHC) gene and includes and provides the breeding fitness in the virtual genetic disease risk information for the offspring resultant from breeding.
Hodnett is silent on pet matching recommendation unit calculates a breeding fitness between pets according to a heterogeneity of a major histocompatibility complex (MHC) gene.
However, Ujvari discloses the MHC has also been linked with mate-choice and pregnancy outcomes and has application for improving mating success in captive breeding programs [abstract]. Ujvari further discloses captive management could benefit from the addition of genetic management, including MHC data, to the studbook process [p. 5172, par. 5].
In regards to claim(s) 5 and 10, 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 combine Hodnett with Ujvari as they both are directed to captive breeding management that benefits from the addition of genetic management. The motivation would have been to include the MHC data of Ujvari to the methods of Hodnett to improving mating success in captive breeding programs as disclosed by Ujvari [abstract]. The skilled person would consider said feature as a standard design option, a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn M. Bickham whose telephone number is (703)756-1817. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30 - 4:30.
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 at 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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1685
/Soren Harward/Primary Examiner, TC 1600