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. Status of claims Claims 1-34, have been reviewed and addressed below. 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 1-3 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. Step 1: Claims 1-3 4 are drawn to computer implemented method, system and non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES). Step 2A Prong One: Independent claims 1, 33 , 34 recite “ for the cohort of individuals, and for first and second time points: accessing phenotype measurements for the plurality of phenotypes ”, “ accessing covariate measurements for the plurality of confounders ”, “ accessing drug usage patterns for the plurality of drugs; and on a per-phenotype basis: covariate-correcting the phenotype measurements for the first and second time points based on the covariate measurements ”, “ generating covariate-corrected phenotype measurements for the first and second time points ”, “ determining a delta based on a difference between the covariate-corrected phenotype measurements for the first and second time points; for each of the drug usage patterns ”, “fitting a second regression model that uses the delta to predict a phenotypic shift in response to usage of the plurality of drugs on the covariate- corrected phenotype measurements”, “drug usage-correcting the phenotype measurements for the first and second time points based on the phenotypic shift, and thereby generating drug usage-corrected phenotype measurements for the first point”. The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process since the steps can e performed manually using a pen and paper . Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES). Step 2A Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including “computer”, “ processor”, “memory”, which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed (e.g., the “processor” language is incidental to what it is “configured” to perform). Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h). The claims does not recite the additional element which can be considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. See: MPEP 2106.05(g). (g). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea ( Step 2A Prong Two: NO ). Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h). Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and paragraph 106 that “t he processing engines and databases of the figures, designated as modules, can be implemented in hardware or software, and need not be divided up in precisely the same blocks as shown in the figures. Some of the modules can also be implemented on different processors, computers, or servers, or spread among a number of different processors, computers, or servers ”. The claims does not recite the additional element which can be considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. See: MPEP 2106.05(g). (g). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). Dependent claim(s) 2-3 2 , when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5212 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:00-4:30 M-F . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Shahid R. Merchant can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-1360 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT REGINALD R. REYES Primary Examiner Art Unit 3684 /REGINALD R REYES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684