DETAILED ACTION Claim Status Claims 31-50 are rejected. 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. Drawings The drawings filed on 10/13/2022 are accepted. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements filed on 1 1/10/2022, 05/09/2024, and 07/21/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered in full . Priority This application is a 371 of PCT/US2021/027478 , filed 04/15/2021. This application claims domestic benefit to provisional application 63010467 , filed on 04/15/2020. Domestic benefit is acknowledged. Therefore, the effective filing date of claims 31-50 is 04/15/2020. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “predictor units” in claims 33, 40, 47. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The “predictor units” are described in terms of what they can include or can accomplish in ¶ 55-56 of the specification, but the specification never defines what the predictor unit is. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 33 -36 , 40 -43 and 47 -50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim s 33, 40 and 47 recite a limitation for “predictor unit” that has been interpreted to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) /35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph . However, as discussed in the Claim Interpretation section above, the instant specification does not describe th e algorithm associated with the ”predictor unit” but rather merely restates the function of the “predictor unit” . MPEP § 2181.IV sets forth that mere restatement of function in the specification without description of the means to accomplish the function fails to provide adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Therefore, the ”predictor unit” does not meet the written description requirement for means-plus-function limitations. T he dependent claims are rejected because they depend from the claims above and fail to resolve the written description issue. 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 33 -36 , 40 -43 and 47 -50 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim limitation “predictor unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The “predictor units” are described in terms of what they can include or can accomplish in ¶ 55-56 of the specification, but the specification never defines what the predictor unit is. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. 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(s) 31-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. 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: 31 , 38, 45 . determining an initial ancestral origin estimate of each of a plurality of segments of an input genomic sequence of a subject, wherein each of the segments comprises a sequence of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) values; and for each of the segments: identifying one or more neighboring segments of the segment; determining the initial ancestral origin estimate of each of the one or more neighboring segments; and processing the initial ancestral origin estimate of the segment and the one or more neighboring segments to obtain a prediction result for an ancestral origin of the segment 33 , 40, 47 . the machine learning model comprises one or more predictor units, determining the initial ancestral origin estimate of each of the segments comprises inputting a sequence of SNP values of a different segment of the segments to the one or more predictor units to generate the initial ancestral origin estimate of the segment, the initial ancestral origin estimate comprises one of a classification output or a coordinates output, the classification output indicates an ancestral origin category, out of a plurality of candidate ancestral origin categories, of the segment input to the predictor unit, and the coordinates output includes coordinates indicative of the ancestral origin or a breed of the segment 34 , 41, 48 . the coordinates comprise geographical coordinates of a locale of the ancestral origin in a physical space 35 , 42, 49 . the coordinates comprise breed coordinates, and subjects of different breeds have different breed coordinates generated from genomic sequences of the subjects of the different breeds 36 , 43, 50 . the breed coordinates are defined in a multi-dimensional space being defined by dimensions obtained from a dimension reduction operation on an encoding of SNP sites, and the machine learning model is trained using vectors representing genomic sequences of reference subjects and reference breed coordinates obtained from performing the dimension 37, 44. the trained machine learning model and the data are use to determine the initial ancestral origin estimate of each of the segments of the input genomic sequence of the subject Determining an “ancestral origin estimate” or a number from a sequence of characters/SNPs, and then recalculating that estimate based on neighboring estimates, is a mental process and a mathematical calculation because the words “identifying”, “determining, and “processing” act as verbal equivalents for the mathematical calculations carried out in the claim, and because a human with a pen and paper could perform this action by themselves. The limitations of 33-37, 40-44, and 47-50 merely provide supportive details about what mathematical objects are being manipulated in the first limitation. Therefore, they are part of the mental process and mathematical relationship described above. This series of limitations is recited again two times in the application, with slight modifications made to adapt the limitations to an “apparatus” or “non-transitory computer readable storage medium.” This does not change t he fact that these limitations are directed towards a mental process/mathematical relationship. While claims 31, 38, and 45 recite performing some aspects of the analysis with an “ computer-implemented method ”, “apparatus,” or “non-transitory computer readable storage medium,” there are no additional limitations that indicate that this “ computer-implemented method ”, “apparatus,” or “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” requires anything other than carrying out the recited mental process or mathematical concept in a generic computer environment. Merely reciting that a mental process is being performed in a generic computer environment does not preclude the steps from being performed practically in the human mind or with pen and paper as claimed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then if falls within the “Mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, claim(s) 31-50 recite(s) an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon ( 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 ). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite an additional element that reflects an improvement to technology or applies or uses the recited judicial exception to effect a particular treatment for a condition. Rather, the instant claims recite additional elements that amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a generic computing environment or mere instructions to apply the recited judicial exception via a generic treatment. Specifically, the claims recite the following additional elements: 31. a computer implemented method 38. An apparatus 38. One or more processors 45. A non-transitory computer readable medium 32, 39, 46. storing a machine learning model trained based on segments representing training genomic sequences that have known ancestral origins 32, 39, 46. receiving data representing the input genomic sequence of the subject, the input genomic sequence covering the segments including a plurality of SNP sites of a genome of the subject, wherein each of the segments comprises the sequence of SNP values at the SNP sites, each of the SNP values specifying a variant at the SNP site The limitations for “storing”, “receiving,” and “use” are directed towards storing and retrieving information in memory, which is a type of “mere data gathering” activity that does not integrate the exception into a practical application. These limitations serve to gather data that is used as input for the abstract idea and there is no indication that the abstract idea has any impact on those data gathering steps. The courts have indicated that mere data gathering activity is insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). There are no limitations that indicate that the claimed “ computer-implemented method ”, “apparatus,” “machine learning model,” or “non-transitory computer readable storage medium,” or the formats of the provided data require anything other than generic computing systems. As such, these limitations equate to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer that the courts have stated does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. As such, claims 31-50 is/are directed to an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon ( 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 equate to mere instructions to apply the recited exception in a generic way or in a generic computing environment. The instant claims recite the following additional elements: 31. a computer implemented method 38. An apparatus 38. One or more processors 45. A non-transitory computer readable medium 32, 39, 46. storing a machine learning model trained based on segments representing training genomic sequences that have known ancestral origins 32, 39, 46. receiving data representing the input genomic sequence of the subject, the input genomic sequence covering the segments including a plurality of SNP sites of a genome of the subject, wherein each of the segments comprises the sequence of SNP values at the SNP sites, each of the SNP values specifying a variant at the SNP site Storing and retrieving information in memory is recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, conventional activity , Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); as is a nalyzing DNA to provide sequence information or detect allelic variants, Genetic Techs. Ltd., 818 F.3d at 1377 . As discussed above, there are no additional limitations to indicate that the claimed “ computer-implemented method ”, “apparatus,” “machine learning model,” or “non-transitory computer readable storage medium,” requires anything other than generic computer components in order to carry out the recited abstract idea in the claims. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. The limitation for treating the tumor cells equate to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception in a generic way because the treating step is so generically recited. MPEP 2106.05(f) discloses that mere instructions to apply the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept to the claims. 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, claims 31-50 are not patent eligible. 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. Claims 31-32, 38-39, and 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Maples et al. ( AJHG 93, 278-288, 2013) (hereafter “Maples”) . Regarding claim 31, the described local-ancestry determination algorithm using segments of a genomic sequence is taught by Maples (figure 1). The plurality of segments of claim 31 is equivalent to the “windows” explained by the description of Maples fig. 1. The MAP inference of (D) of fig. 1, explained in the description, is equivalent to the limitations for “identifying,” “determining” and “processing,” because the neighbors of the first segment are identified, ancestral predictions for the windows/segments are determined, and then processed into a single ancestral estimate. Claim 32 limits 31 by adding a machine learning model trained on the segments, receiving a plurality of SNPs in the SNP data, and that the machine learning model is used to determine ancestry estimates. These are all taught by figure 1 of Maples. Part (B) of fig. 1 describes training of random forest models that are later used in part (C) of the method. Maples ( pg 283 left col ¶ 2) mentions that the training step and the later inference step ran on a processor with 24 GB of RAM, teaching the storing of the machine learning model. Receiving data is taught by (A) of the fig. 1 description. Claims 38-39, 45-46 restate claim 31 on a generic “apparatus” or “non-transitory computer readable medium”. The arguments against claims 31-32 apply, mutatis mutandis . 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. Claims 33-37 , 40-44, and 47-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maples as applied to claims 31-32, 38-39, and 45-46 above, and further in view of Curtis et al ( KDD 2017, pg 1417-1425, 05/09/2024 IDS reference) (hereafter “Curtis”), and Alexander et al. ( Genome Research, 19:1655-1664, 2009) (hereafter “Alexander”). With respect to Claim 33, SNP values are input to the machine learning model of Maples in part (B) to generate an origin estimate in (D)/(E), which is a classification output (figure 1). Maples teaches the limitations these claims are dependent upon. Also in claim 33, the “coordinates output” is taught by Curtis (figure 3 , 5 ). The “coordinates output” found in Curtis describe s an ancestral origin in physical space, so claim 34 is taught by Curtis (figure 3 , 5 ). The “coordinates output” of Curtis falls under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “breed coordinates”, so claim 35 is taught by Curtis (fig. 3 , 5 ). Moving on to claim 36, the “breed coordinates” of Curtis are found by a series of steps beginning with the application of the ADMIXTURE software (Curtis section 2.1 pg 1419 right col ¶ 4) . Curtis is silent as to a dimensionality reduction operation. However, t he ADMIXTURE software employs PCA, which the authors of the software state is a type of dimensionality reduction (Alexander pg 1655 right col ¶ 1). Determining probabilities of ancestral origins and selecting the highest probability, as in the limitations of claim 37, are taught by Maples (Maples fig. 1 , step (C) ). Claims 40-44 and 47-50 restate these claims, only differing in their dependency such that they are directed to an “apparatus” or “non-transitory computer readable medium.” The same arguments against claims 33-37 apply, mutatis mutandis . Regarding claim s 33-37 , 40-44, 47-50, a n invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention if some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led that person to combine the prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. There is a teaching to use coordinates data in the text of Curtis (fig. 3, 5) . There is a teaching to use dimensionality reduction in the text of Alexander (Alexander pg 1655 right col ¶ 1 : “principal component analysis constructs low-dimensional projections of the data” ) . There would be a reasonable expectation of success in making this combination to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as there is nothing about the method of Maples that blocks the ordinary artisan from adding coordinates data and dimensionality reduction . Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to modify the method of Maples by adding coordinates data and dimensionality reduction , in order to increase the granularity of the ancestry predictions . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT GRACELYN M HILL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-9871 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9-5pm . 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, Olivia M. 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. /G.M.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1685 /OLIVIA M. WISE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1685