DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06 November 2025 has been entered.
Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-22 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 13, 15 and 20 are currently amended; claims 2, 6-10, 12, 16-19 and 21-22 are previously presented; claims 4 and 14 are cancelled.
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.
3. Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites “scanning through a genetic data store of over 10,000 genetic data instances to identify one or more related individuals who share identity-by-descent (IBD) segments with the target individual for over a threshold length measured in 4 centimorgans (cM); determining one or more windows of genomic locality to which the one or more shared IBD segments belong; determining one or more ethnicity labels for each of the shared IBD segments that belong to the one or more windows of genomic locality, wherein the ethnicity labels for the shared IBD segments are shared between the target individual and the one or more related individuals; each of the ethnicity labels being a local ethnicity label that is assigned to a window of genomic locality”, which is merely a concept can be performed in the human mind. The claim 1 deals with analyzing genetic data, identifying shared segments, and determining ethnicity labels using an inter-window Hidden Markov model (HMM). These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the inter-window hidden Markov model (HMM). For example, but for the “inter-window hidden Markov model (HMM)” language, the claim encompasses the user capable of analyzing genetic data, identifying shared segments, and determining ethnicity labels for the shared IBD segments. These scanning and determining limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception.
The claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim 1 further recites additional elements “receiving a target genetic dataset of a target individual; storing the one or more ethnicity labels of the shared IBD segments between the target individual and the related individual” and independent claim 11 recites additional elements “receiving a target genetic dataset of a target individual; a graphical user interface in communication with the computing server, the graphical user interface configured to display the one or more ethnicity labels of the shared IBD segments between the target individual and the related individual”, which indicates mere data gathering activity that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. The claim 1 further recites additional elements, “wherein determining the one or more ethnicity labels for each of the shared IBD segments comprises executing applying an inter-window hidden Markov model (HMM) trained on the genetic data store that stores the 10,000 genetic data instances, the HMM being represented as a directed acyclic graph comprising node groups corresponding to respective windows, each node representing a possible ethnicity label and associated likelihood”. Simply applying a known statistical model such as the HMM to a specific type of data (genetic data) on a general-purpose computer usually does not constitute an "inventive concept". These limitations in reciting, applying an inter-window hidden Markov model to determine one or more ethnicity labels for each of the shared IBD segments, which provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. The trained inter-window hidden Markov model is used here as to apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the trained hidden Markov model functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “determining the one or more ethnicity labels for each of the shared IBD segments” and “display the one or more ethnicity labels of the shared IBD segments”, indicated in claim 11 and do not include any details about how the determining step is accomplished by using the trained hidden Markov model. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the independent claim 11 recites a system comprising processors and memory and independent claim 20 further recites a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store instructions when executed by one or more processors to perform the steps (including receiving, scanning, determining, storing and displaying). The processor in all steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. MPEP 2106.05(b). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim's use of a generic computer to perform the analysis, even with specific parameters (10,000 instances, 4 cM length), may not be enough to satisfy this step if these computer functions are found to be "well-understood, routine, conventional activities". The courts have recognized the following laboratory technique as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the life science arts when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: “(v). Analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or detect allelic variants, Genetic Techs. Ltd., 818 F.3d at 1377; 118 USPQ2d at 1546”. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). As such, the inclusion of generic computer components being used to implement the abstract idea do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the independent claims recite the elements receiving, scanning, determining, and displaying steps, which indicates data gathering, analyzing and displaying. The courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. Thus, the claim 1 is ineligible.
As such, the independent claims 11 and 20 are also directed to the abstract idea for the same reason as the claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 2, 12 and 21, claims further recite the limitations “wherein the target genetic dataset is a pair of phased haplotype sequences”, which indicates mere data gathering activity that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, the claims include data related to mental processes are insignificant extra solution activity which are well-understood, routine, and conventional. MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, the claims are directed to perform mental processes that fall into the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception. Furthermore, claims include no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Regarding claims 3, 13 and 22, claims further recite the limitations “wherein the pair of phased haplotype sequences is generated based on comparing the target genetic dataset to over 10,000 other genomic datasets to separate data bits of the target genetic dataset into two groups of data inheritance”, which further recites mental processes and are directed to perform mental processes that fall into the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception. Furthermore, claims include no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, claims further recite the limitations “wherein the one or more windows of genomic locality correspond to windows in a hidden Markov model and determining the one or more ethnicity labels for the one or more windows of genomic locality comprises using the hidden Markov model to determine the ethnicity labels”, are just insignificant extra solution activity which are well-understood, routine, and conventional. MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, the claim is directed to perform mental processes that fall into the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception. Furthermore, claim includes no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, claims further recite the limitations “further comprising providing an estimate that the target genetic dataset and a related genetic dataset share a common ancestor that can be represented by a data instance that has an ethnicity composition derived from the one or more ethnicity labels assigned to the one or more windows to which the one or more shared IBD segments belong”, which further recites mental processes and are directed to perform mental processes that fall into the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception. Furthermore, claims include no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, claims further recite the limitations “wherein each of the one or more ethnicity labels is assigned to a window of genomic locality and ethnicity information comprises a composition of the ethnicity labels”, which further recites mental processes and are directed to perform mental processes that fall into the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception. Furthermore, claims include no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, claims further recite the limitations “wherein at least one of the one or more shared IBD segments is a data string that is identified by a fuzzy match”, which further recites mental processes and are directed to perform mental processes that fall into the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception. Furthermore, claims include no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Regarding claim 9, claim further recites the limitations “further comprising determining, for a related genetic dataset and the target genetic dataset, a data inheritance source of the shared IBD segments in relation to a family tree”, which further recites mental processes and are directed to perform mental processes that fall into the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception. Furthermore, claims include no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, claims further recite the limitations “further comprising causing to display, at a graphical user interface, a geographical map that illustrates ethnicity information of the shared IBD segments”, are insignificant extra solution activity which are well-understood, routine, and conventional. MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, the claim is directed to perform mental processes that fall into the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception. Furthermore, claim includes no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
4. In response to applicant arguments regarding the rejections 101 (abstract idea), examiner respectfully responds that the additional amended feature provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. The claim's use of a generic computer to perform the analysis, even with specific parameters (10,000 instances, 4 cM length), may not be enough to satisfy this step if these computer functions are found to be "well-understood, routine, conventional activities". The courts have recognized the following laboratory technique as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the life science arts when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: “(v). Analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or detect allelic variants, Genetic Techs. Ltd., 818 F.3d at 1377; 118 USPQ2d at 1546”. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). As such, the inclusion of generic computer components being used to implement the abstract idea do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim further includes the trained inter-window hidden Markov model which is used here as to apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the trained hidden Markov model functions. Furthermore, simply applying a known statistical model such as the HMM to a specific type of data (genetic data) on a general-purpose computer usually does not constitute an "inventive concept". Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “determining the one or more ethnicity labels for each of the shared IBD segments” and “display the one or more ethnicity labels of the shared IBD segments”, indicated in claim 11, which do not include any details about how the determining step is accomplished by using the trained hidden Markov model. Thus, the claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-22 are directed to the abstract idea.
5. Applicant's arguments, see pages 10-12, filed on 6 November 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-22 under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Song et al. (US 2020/0273542 A1) teaches identification of family relationships based on genetical and genealogical records.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD SOLAIMAN BHUYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7843. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Robert Beausoliel can be reached on 571-272-3645. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD S BHUYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2167
/ROBERT W BEAUSOLIEL JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2167