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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/26/2022, 05/22/2023, and 09/16/2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. 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 . Claim(s) 1-8, 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0258601 (hereinafter “Lau”) in view of Suzuki et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0127807 (hereinafter “Suzuki”) . In regard to claim 1, Lau teaches A control method of controlling a computer to analyze, at a second facility, nucleic acid sequence data obtained, at a first facility, by a sequencer that reads a nucleic acid sequence, for a gene panel test ( Figure 2 elements 204 and 208, Figure 3, paragraphs [0191] -[ 0193], [0263] illustrate and disclose genomic sequencers that communicate to other computers e.g. Figure 2 elements 10, 20, 30, etc. Figure 3a illustrates providing tissue sample and test data. ) , comprising receiving, from the first facility via a network, a sequence data set comprising a plurality of nucleic acid sequence data obtained by the sequencer corresponding to each of a plurality of library samples comprising a first library sample and a second library sample, which are prepared from a specimen of a subject, (Paragraphs [0263], [0401]-[0402] disclose sequencing normal and tumor DNA/RNA samples producing FASTQ output files) ; analyzing a first sequence data and a second sequence data corresponding to each of the first library sample and the second library sample linked by the link information; and outputting analysis information based on an analysis result of the first sequence data and an analysis result of the second sequence data (Paragraphs [0400]-[0443] disclose analyzing the FASTQ files from the sequencer and generating a report.) . However, where Lau does not explicitly teach, Suzuki teaches and link information indicating that the first library sample and the second library sample are prepared from the specimen of the same subject (Suzuki paragraph [0061] discloses utilizing sample IDs for associating information on a subject from which a sample is collected, and the sample with each other.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Suzuki into that of Lau in order to enable accurate tracking of specimens and associated patients. In regard to claim 2, Lau, in view of Suzuki, teaches The control method according to claim 1, wherein the receiving comprises receiving, by a first computer, the sequence data set and the link information ( Lau Figure 2 elements 204 and 208, Figure 3, paragraphs [0191]-[0193], [0263] illustrate and disclose genomic sequencers (illustrated by a computer) that communicate to other computers e.g. Figure 2 elements 10, 20, 30, etc. Figure 3a illustrates providing tissue sample and test data.) , and the control method further comprising sending, by the first computer, the received sequence data set and the link information to a second computer, wherein the analyzing comprises, by the second computer, analyzing the first sequence data and the second sequence data, and the outputting comprises, by the second computer, outputting the analysis information ( Lau as cited above Figure 2 elements 204 and 208, Figure 3, paragraphs [0191]-[0193], [0263] illustrate and disclose genomic sequencers that communicate to other computers e.g. Figure 2 elements 10, 20, 30, etc. Figure 3a illustrates providing tissue sample and test data. ) . In regard to claim 3, Lau, in view of Suzuki, teaches The control method according to claim 1, wherein the receiving the sequence data set and the link information, the analyzing the first sequence data and the second sequence data, and the outputting the analysis information are executed by a computer ( Lau as cited above Figure 2 elements 204 and 208, Figure 3 and 3a , paragraphs [0191]-[0193], [0263] illustrate and disclose genomic sequencers that communicate to other computers e.g. Figure 2 elements 10, 20, 30, etc. Figure 3a illustrates providing tissue sample and test data ) . In regard to claim 4, Lau, in view of Suzuki, teaches The control method according to claim 1, wherein the first library sample is prepared from a tumor specimen of the subject, and the second library sample is prepared from a non-tumor specimen of the subject, and the analysis information comprises somatic mutation information based on an analysis result of the first sequence data and germline mutation information based on an analysis result of the second sequence data (Lau Paragraph [0389] discloses matching a tumor specimen and normal specimen for analysis. Figure 11 and paragraphs [0227] -[ 0228] disclose an assay to detect somatic and germline variants.) . In regard to claim 5, Lau, in view of Suzuki, teaches The control method according to claim 1, wherein the first library sample is prepared from deoxyribonucleic acid contained in a tumor specimen of the subject, and the second library sample is prepared from ribonucleic acid contained in the tumor specimen of the subject, and the analysis information comprises information on a somatic mutation based on an analysis result of the first sequence data and information on a fusion gene mutation based on an analysis result of the second sequence data (Lau Figure 11 and paragraphs [0227]-[0228] disclose determining DNA and or RNA from the specimens as well as an assay to detect somatic and germline variants and fusion mRNA created from chromosomal rearrangements.) . In regard to claim 6, Lau, in view of Suzuki, teaches The control method according to claim 5, wherein the sequence data set further comprises third sequence data corresponding to a third library sample prepared from a non-tumor specimen of the same subject, the link information is information indicating that the third library sample is prepared from the specimen of the same subject in addition to the first library sample and the second library sample (Suzuki paragraph [0061] discloses utilizing sample IDs for associating information on a subject from which a sample is collected, and the sample with each other. Paragraphs [0149] -[ 0153] and Figures 7-8 disclose and illustrate multiple samples both for quality control and from the specimen with associated panel IDs. Note the motivation to combine as used in the rejection of claim 1 is applicable.) , the analyzing a first sequence data and a second sequence data comprises analyzing the third sequence data, and the analysis information further comprises germline mutation information based on an analysis result of the third sequence data in addition to the somatic mutation information based on the analysis result of the first sequence data and the fusion gene mutation information based on the analysis result of the second sequence data (Lau Figure 11 and paragraphs [0227]-[0228] disclose determining DNA and or RNA from the specimens as well as an assay to detect somatic and germline variants and fusion mRNA created from chromosomal rearrangements.) . In regard to claim 7, Lau, in view of Suzuki, teaches The control method according to claim 4, wherein the non-tumor specimen is a blood sample collected from the subject (Lau paragraphs [0062] and [0228] disclose using blood and/or saliva as normal samples.) . In regard to claim 8, Lau, in view of Suzuki, teaches The control method according to claim 1, further comprising receiving analysis request information comprising at least one of case information of the subject, a type of the gene panel test, and first facility information from the first facility via the network (Suzuki paragraphs [0051] and [0061] -[ 0063] disclose a request for analysis and provides the testing institution with the sample ID as well as designating specific panels. Note the motivation to combine as used in the rejection of claim 1 is applicable.) . In regard to claim 12, Lau, in view of Suzuki, teaches The control method according to claim 1, further comprising receiving, with the sequence data set, another sequence data set comprising a plurality of nucleic acid sequence data obtained by the sequencer, corresponding to each of a plurality of library samples comprising a fourth library sample and a fifth library sample prepared from a specimen of another subject (Lau paragraph [0397] discloses capability to process two or more samples simultaneously in the same sequencer flow and reading from multiple samples in the same file.) . In regard to claim 13, Lau, in view of Suzuki, teaches The control method according to claim 12, wherein the first library sample, the second library sample, the fourth library sample, and the fifth library sample are samples, in which sequences are read by the sequencer in the same sequence run (Lau paragraph [0397] discloses capability to process two or more samples simultaneously in the same sequencer flow and reading from multiple samples in the same file) . In regard to claim 14, Lau, in view of Suzuki, teaches The control method according to claim 1, wherein the receiving the sequence data set and the link information, the analyzing the first sequence data and the second sequence data, and the outputting the analysis information are performed by a computer in a cloud system ( Lau paragraph [0448] discloses the FASTQ files may be uploaded to a cloud based platform. ) . In regard to claim 15, Lau, in view of Suzuki, teaches The control method according to claim 1, wherein the link information is used as sample identification information to identify a library sample or subject identification information to identify a subject from whom a specimen of a library sample is collected (Suzuki paragraph [0061] discloses utilizing sample IDs for associating information on a subject from which a sample is collected, and the sample with each other. Note the motivation to combine as used in the rejection of claim 1 is applicable.) . Regarding claims 16-18, the claims recite analogous limitations to that of claims 1 , 4-5 and are therefore rejected on the same premise. Note the rejection of claim 1 cites to a system with multiple computers/facilities. Regarding claims 19-20, the claims recite analogous limitations to that of claims 1 and 5 and are therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau in view of Suzuki and further in view of Robinson et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0319718 (hereinafter “ Robinson ”). In regard to claim 9, Lau, in view of Suzuki, teaches The control method according to claim 1, but where they do not explicitly teach, Subramaniam discloses the method further comprising obtaining input information, inputted by a human to a third computer at the first facility, indicating that the first library sample and the second library sample are prepared from the specimen of the same subject, and comparing the link information and the input information ( Robinson Figure 5 and paragraph [0221] disclose a user interface that allow sthe user to enter an identifier of a sample and may provide an error if identification fails requiring the user to enter the identifier manually.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Robinson into that of Lau and Suzuki in order to enable performance of one or mre actions based on the identification of the sample ( Robinson paragraph [0221] ). In regard to claim 10, Lau, in view of Suzuki and Robinson , teaches The control method according to claim 9, further comprising determining whether the link information and the input information are consistent with each other, and wherein in response to the link information and the input information being consistent, the analyzing the first sequence data and the second sequence data is executed (Robinson Figure 5 and paragraph [0221] disclose a user interface that allow sthe user to enter an identifier of a sample and may provide an error if identification fails requiring the user to enter the identifier manually. Note the motivation to combine as used in the rejection of claim 9 is applicable.) . In regard to claim 11, Lau, in view of Suzuki and Robinson, teaches The control method according to claim 9, further comprising determining whether the link information and the input information are consistent with each other, and in response to the link information and the input information being inconsistent, notifying error information based on the inconsistency to the first facility (Robinson Figure 5 and paragraph [0221] disclose a user interface that allow sthe user to enter an identifier of a sample and may provide an error if identification fails requiring the user to enter the identifier manually. Note the motivation to combine as used in the rejection of claim 9 is applicable) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Subramaniam U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0104790 disclosing an interface for sequencing that involves user input (Figures 1-5). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KEVIN K MCINNISH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1089 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9 am - 6 pm (Flexible Fridays) . 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, David Silver can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-8634 . 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. /KEVIN K MCINNISH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 6221