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. This communication is a notice of allowability in response to Remarks and Amendments filed on 9/16/2022 . Claims 1-2 4 are examined and are currently pending. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for a provisional application filed on 12/29/2021 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/28/2023, 6/14/2024, 8/15/2024, 9/25/2025, 2/16/2026, 3/5/2026 follows the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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 1-2 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims, regardless of a system/apparatus, a method, or a product claim. The claimed invention (Claims 1- 2 4 ) is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, “an idea of itself”, which have been identified/found by the courts as abstract ideas in new 101 memos of the subject matter eligibility in here (https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility) including 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it/they is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications: Independent system claim 1 (Step 2A, Prong I): is directed to multiple abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and “Mental process”. Claim 1, Steps of, a first model configured to generate, based in part on evolutionary conservation summary statistics of amino acids in a target protein sequence, a first score-to-rank mapping that maps a first set of pathogenicity scores for a set of variants observed in the target protein sequence to a first set of score rankings; a second model configured to generate, based in part on epistasis expressed by amino acid patterns spanning the target protein sequence and a plurality of non-target protein sequences aligned with the target protein sequence in a multiple sequence alignment, a second score-to-rank mapping that maps a second set of pathogenicity scores for the set of variants to a second set of score rankings; a reassignment logic configured to reassign pathogenicity scores from the first set of pathogenicity scores to the set of variants based on the first and second score-to-rank mappings; and an output logic configured to generate a ranking of the set of variants based on the reassigned pathogenicity scores. f all within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea because these steps recite “ generate summary/sequences/mappings/rankings…, reassigning scores … ” , which are certain methods of organizing human activity which encompasses both certain activity of a single person, certain activity that involves multiple people, and certain activity between a person and a computer. In addition, claim 1, steps mentioned above also falls within the abstract “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas since these limitation covers performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, a human being can observe/generate mappings/data/rankings , can observe/ reassign scores . Independent claim 1, Step 2A (Prong II): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. This judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional element that are significant more than the abstract ideas. In particular, there is no machine/hardware/computer to actually perform the abstract steps mentioned above. Thus, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, and is simply organized information through human activity or merely mental tasks, or and is part of, or a related, judicial exception and does not meaningfully limit the application of the identified judicial exception, and as such does not constitute significantly more. There is no specificity regarding any technology, just broadly, execute the programming in structions to process data, generate data, map data , reassign data . There are no additional elements, for example, hardware processor of a machine to actually perform all of the steps at all. The steps are m ainly processing data, generating data/information /mappings/rankings, reassigning data. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Independent claim 1, (step 2B): There are no additional elements and add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. T he component ( i.e., a system) described in independent claims 1 add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea , and is merely recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Generic sensor/ computer components recited as performing generic sensing/ computer functions that are well-understood, routine and convention activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to receive/ generate/ send/display information over communication network/internet does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea. (see analysis in claim 1). Dependent claims 2-24 , are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 1 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 2-24 , are also non-statutory subject matter. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claims do NOT recite limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thus, the claimed invention, as a whole, does not provide 'significantly more' than the abstract idea, and is non-statutory subject matter. Claim 1- 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Independent Claim 1 are directed to a system/apparatus as described in the preamble. There’s nothing in the body of the claim that’s structural. Examiner notes that claim 1 recites a system but the claims do not positively recite any elements that necessarily constitute a system, such as computer hardware. There is no structure or hardware cited in the system. Examiner further notes that claim 1 recites a system comprising graphical interface to display information, which reasonably can consist of purely software components described in the specification ( [0040, 0056 ]). Software per se, is not considered one of the four statutory categories. Using this interpretation, Examiner finds claim 1 void of system/apparatus structure and fails to belong to an appropriate statutory subject class. Claims 2- 24 , depend from claim 1 do not cure the deficiencies set forth above. Therefore, claim 1-24 are rejected under non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2105 and 2106. Prior Art Rejection Independent claims 1- 2 4 , as a whole recite a combination of limitations that has Not been found as define over prior art of record (the combination of Sundaram et al. (US 2019/0114544), Jackson et al. (US 2013/0268290), Silver et al. (US 2020/0097835), Zhou et al. (US 2021/0074378), Maston (US 2017/0316149), and Ranganathan yet al. (WO 2012/050923 A1), Torkamani et al. (WO 2013/067001 A1), and NPL1-- Rausell A, Mohammadi P, McLaren PJ, Bartha I, Xenarios I, Fellay J, Telenti A. Analysis of stop-gain and frameshift variants in human innate immunity genes. PLoS Comput Biol. 2014 Jul 24;10(7 ):e 1003757. doi : 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003757. PMID: 25058640; PMCID: PMC4110073. NPL2-- Liu L, Sanderford MD, Patel R, Chandrashekar P, Gibson G, Kumar S. Biological relevance of computationally predicted pathogenicity of noncoding variants. Nat Commun . 2019 Jan 18;10(1):330. doi : 10.1038/s41467-018-08270-y. PMID: 30659175; PMCID: PMC6338804. NPL3-- Wells A, Heckerman D, Torkamani A, Yin L, Sebat J, Ren B, Telenti A, di Iulio J. Ranking of non-coding pathogenic variants and putative essential regions of the human genome. Nat Commun . 2019 Nov 20;10(1):5241. doi : 10.1038/s41467-019-13212-3. PMID: 31748530; PMCID: PMC6868241. NPL4-- Baugh EH, Simmons- Edler R, Müller CL, Alford RF, Volfovsky N, Lash AE, Bonneau R. Robust classification of protein variation using structural modelling and large-scale data integration. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016 Apr 7;44(6):2501-13. doi : 10.1093/ nar /gkw120. Epub 2016 Feb 28. PMID: 26926108; PMCID: PMC4824117. Allowable Subject Matter As to the prior art rejection, in light of Specification, upon further search and consideration, it is found that claim 1-2 4 overcome prior art/reference over the recited arts of record, and is allowable subject to an outstanding 101 rejections. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with, and pending remedy to outstanding issues cited above. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Karbassi et al. (US 2016/0253452 , teaches determining the clinical significance of a genetic variant by determining a plurality of scores ) . Agrawal et al. (US 20 18/0218116 , teaches generating a priority score for a variant of a gene based on its potential significance to a disease. Priority scores may be calculated for multiple variants, and the variants may be ranked based on the generated priority scores ), Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN M LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5489. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30am--5pm. Fax is 571-270-6489. 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, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached on 571-272-6702. 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. /SUN M LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 .