DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response, filed 02/24/2026, has been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous Office Actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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.
Restriction election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B (claims 5 and 15) in the reply filed on 06/20/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 4 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 4 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected species, as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 03/24/2025.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are rejected.
Priority
The instant Application claims domestic benefit as a CON to US application 16946829, filed 07/08/2020, which is a CON of US application 14924562, filed 10/27/2015, which claims benefit to US provisional application 62/072338, filed 10/29/2014.
Accordingly, each of claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are afforded the effective filing date of 10/29/2014.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 01/13/2023, 01/23/2023, 05/01/2023, 01/05/2024, 04/03/2024, 08/26/2024, and 01/16/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have therefore been considered. Signed copies of the IDS documents are included with this Office Action.
Drawings
The Drawings submitted 01/13/2023 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 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. This rejection pertains to new matter. The rejection is maintained from previous office action.
Claim 1 recites “determining, from the table-based search space, a reduced search space that eliminates one or more of the admixture generations that are impossible for a combination of the genetic ancestry summary data of the individual and the specific ancestry, and performing a maximum likelihood search on the reduced search space”. The specification as published provides support for another example recombination model used to determine the admixture generation. Table 1 maps admixture generations to various types of genetic ancestry summary data, and the values in the table are determined based on simulation results of the recombination simulation process [0043]. Genetic ancestry summary data obtained from the simulation is recorded for each generation [0043]. In this example, the genetic ancestry summary data includes the mean length of chromosome segments corresponding to the ancestry, the length of the longest segment corresponding to the ancestry, the number of chromosome segments corresponding to the ancestry, and the number of chromosomes bearing segments corresponding to the ancestry [0043]. However, there is not support within the specification, nor has Applicant provided such support, for a table-based search space that uses other “combinations of values for simulated genetic ancestry summary data.” Therefore, there is insufficient disclosure to carry out the above recited claim. Claims 2-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 1.
Response to Applicant Arguments
Applicant submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand with reasonable clarity that the features in question are disclosed at least by paragraph 43 and Table I of Applicant's specification. [p. 9, par. 1].
It is respectfully found not persuasive. The table-based search space is not defined by Table 1 or is it labeled as such. As disclosed in the specification the table represents maps admixture generations to various types of genetic ancestry summary data, and the values in the table are determined based on simulation results of the recombination simulation process described above," and "genetic ancestry summary data obtained from the simulation is recorded for each generation” not a table-based search space.
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.
For the following rejections, underlined text indicates newly recited portions necessitated by claim amendment.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to one or more judicial exceptions without significantly more. Any newly recited portions are necessitated by claim amendment.
MPEP 2106 organizes judicial exception analysis into Steps 1, 2A (Prongs One and Two) and 2B as follows below. MPEP 2106 and the following USPTO website provide further explanation and case law citations: uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials.
Framework with which to Evaluate Subject Matter Eligibility:
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter;
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application (Prong Two); and
Step 2B: If the claims do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
Framework Analysis as Pertains to the Instant Claims:
Step 1
With respect to Step 1: yes, the claims are directed to method, non-transitory computer readable medium, and a system, i.e., a process, machine, or manufacture within the above 101 categories [Step 1: YES; See MPEP § 2106.03].
Step 2A, Prong One
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite judicial exceptions in the form of abstract ideas. The MPEP at 2106.04(a)(2) further explains that abstract ideas are defined as:
mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations);
certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices or principles, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people); and/or
mental processes (procedures for observing, evaluating, analyzing/ judging and organizing information).
With respect to the instant claims, under the Step 2A, Prong One evaluation, the claims are found to recite abstract ideas that fall into the grouping of mental processes (in particular procedures for observing, analyzing and organizing information) and mathematical concepts (in particular mathematical relationships and formulas) are as follows:
Independent claims 1, 12, and 20:
comparing, …, representations of a plurality of genetic segments of an individual to a plurality of reference ancestry models, wherein the reference ancestry models are stored in a database and are respectively associated with different ancestries;
determining, … and based on the comparison, that one or more genetic segments of the plurality of genetic segments correspond to a specific ancestry;
determining, … and for the individual, genetic ancestry summary data corresponding to the specific ancestry, wherein the genetic ancestry summary data includes: a number of the one or more genetic segments that correspond to the specific ancestry, a number of chromosomes carrying the one or more genetic segments that correspond to the specific ancestry, and lengths of each of the one or more genetic segments that correspond to the specific ancestry;
applying, by way of the one or more processors, maximum likelihood estimation to the genetic ancestry summary data as fit to a genetic recombination model, the genetic recombination model associating respective genetic characteristics to predicted numbers of generations between a subject having genetic characteristics and at least one non-admixed ancestor of the specific ancestry;
determining, from the table-based search space, a reduced search space that eliminates one or more of the admixture generations that are impossible for a combination of the genetic ancestry summary data of the individual and the specific ancestry, and
performing a maximum likelihood search on the reduced search space;
determining, … and from the maximum likelihood estimation, an estimated number of admixture generations for the individual and the specific ancestry
Dependent claims 6 and 16:
wherein the one or more of the admixture generations that are impossible for a combination of the genetic ancestry summary data of the individual and the specific ancestry are identified based on a percentage of the specific ancestry assigned to the individual.
Dependent claims 7 and 17:
wherein the maximum likelihood search fits the genetic ancestry summary data to the mapping based on an intersection of feasible ranges of the admixture generations that were determined from data related to the one or more genetic segments.
Dependent claims 8 and 18:
wherein the intersection of the feasible ranges is used to determine a lower bound on the admixture generations.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5, 9-11, 13-15, and 19 recite further steps that limit the judicial exceptions in independent claims 1 and 12 and, as such, also are directed to those abstract ideas. For example, claim 2 further limits genetic ancestry summary data of claim 1, claims 3 and 5 and 13 and 15 further limit recombination model of claims 1 and 12, claims 9 and 19 further limit the estimated numbers of generations of claim 1, claim 10 further limits the non-admixed ancestor of claim 1,and claim 11 further limits the specific ancestry of claim 1.
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) and determined to each cover performance either in the mind and/or by mathematical operation because the method only requires a user to manually compare, determining, applying, reduce, and fitting, . Without further detail as to the methodology involved in “comparing, …, representations of a plurality of genetic segments”, “determining, … and based on the comparison”, “determining, … and for the individual, genetic ancestry summary data”, , under the BRI, one may simply, for example, use pen and paper to determine admixture generation. Some of these steps and those recited in the dependent claims require mathematical techniques such as “determining, … and from the maximum likelihood estimation”, “reduced by eliminating impossible admixture generations”, “fits the genetic ancestry summary data to the mapping”, and “determine a lower bound.
Therefore, claims 1, 12, and 20 and those claims dependent therefrom recite an abstract idea [Step 2A, Prong 1: YES; See MPEP § 2106.04].
Step 2A, Prong Two
Because the claims do recite judicial exceptions, direction under Step 2A, Prong Two, provides that the claims must be examined further to determine whether they integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). A claim can be said to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application when it applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is performed by analyzing the additional elements of the claim to determine if the judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).I.; MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the judicial exceptions, the claim is said to fail to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).III).
Additional elements, Step 2A, Prong Two
With respect to the instant recitations, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Independent claim 1, 12, and 20:
providing, by way of the one or more processors and for graphical display on a user interface, the one or more estimated numbers of generations and the specific ancestry.
obtaining a table-based search space that maps admixture generations to combinations of simulated values for the genetic ancestry summary data,
The claims also include non-abstract computing elements. For example, independent claim 1 includes a one or more processors, claim 12 includes A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program instructions and one or more processors of a computing system, and claim 20 includes a computing system comprising: a processor; memory; and program instructions, stored in the memory.
Considerations under Step 2A, Prong Two
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements of the claims do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application for the following reasons. Those steps directed to data inputting such as “obtaining” and data outputting, such as “providing”, perform functions of providing the data needed to carry out the judicial exceptions. Data inputting and outputting do not impose any meaningful limitation on the judicial exceptions, or on how the judicial exceptions are performed. Data outputting steps are not sufficient to integrate judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Further steps directed to additional non-abstract elements of “a computing system comprising: a processor; memory, and non-transitory computer readable medium” do not describe any specific computational steps by which the “computer parts” perform or carry out the judicial exceptions, nor do they provide any details of how specific structures of the computer, such as the computer-readable recording media, are used to implement these functions. The claims state nothing more than a generic computer which performs the functions that constitute the judicial exceptions. Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions using a computer, and therefore the claim does not integrate that judicial exceptions into a practical application. The courts have weighed in and consistently maintained that when, for example, a memory, display, processor, machine, etc.… are recited so generically (i.e., no details are provided) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer, and these limitations may be viewed as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, none of the claims recite additional elements which would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to one or more judicial exceptions [Step 2A, Prong 2: NO; See MPEP § 2106.04(d)].
Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05.A i-vi)
According to analysis so far, the additional elements described above do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. A determination of whether additional elements provide significantly more also rests on whether the additional elements or a combination of elements represents other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Conventionality is a question of fact and may be evidenced as: a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
With respect to the instant claims, the courts have found that inputting and outputting data are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer when claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
As such, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (MPEP2106.05(d)). The data outputting steps as recited in the instant claims constitute a general link to a technological environment which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept which would render the claims significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP2106.05(g)&(h)).
With respect to claims 1, 12, and 20 and those claims dependent therefrom, the computer-related elements or the general purpose computer do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims state nothing more than a generic computer which performs the functions that constitute the judicial exceptions. Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions using a computer, which the courts have found to not provide significantly more when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.06(A)). The specification also notes that computer processors and systems, as example, are commercially available or widely used at [0018-0020]. The additional elements are set forth at such a high level of generality that they can be met by a general purpose computer. Therefore, the computer components constitute no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than the judicial exceptions (see MPEP 2106.05(b)I-III).
Taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself [Step 2B: NO; See MPEP § 2106.05].
Therefore, the instant claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to one or more judicial exceptions without significantly more. For additional guidance, applicant is directed generally to the MPEP § 2106.
Response to Applicant Arguments
Applicant submits claims explicitly recite a technical improvement - determination of a reduced search space that eliminates one or more of the admixture generations that are impossible for a combination of the genetic ancestry summary data of the individual and the specific ancestry [p.13, par. 1].
It is respectfully found not persuasive. The technology is determining admixture generation. This can be performed without the abstract idea of a reduced search space, therefore it is not an technical improvement but optimization.
Applicant submits the reduction in search space is an unconventional enhancement to how a computing system executes a likelihood estimation search when faced with individual-level input. It is not a mere data analysis algorithm. Akin to Enfish, it is an architectural modification of the search's execution to achieve memory efficiency, and therefore is a concrete technical improvement [p. 14, par. 1].
It is respectfully found not persuasive. Determining a reduced search space is not an architecture modification itself, it is a pre processing step to which the architecture can be determined. The applicant discloses memory efficiency as an issue to be solved but it is not disclosed in the specification that the reduced search space is for memory efficiency.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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