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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-34 are cancelled.
Claims 35-54 are pending.
Claims 35-54 are rejected.
Claim 53 is objected to.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application, U.S. Nonprovisional App. No. 15/743,898 filed 11 Jan. 2018, PCT/US16/42515 filed 15 July 2016, and U.S. Provisional App. No. 62/192,598 filed 15 July 2015 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Accordingly, the effective filing date of the claimed invention is 15 July 2015.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07 Sept. 2023, 12 Aug. 2026, and 17 Aug. 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the list of cited references was considered in full by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07 Sept. 2023. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
References to Applicant’s specification are made with respect to the published version of the application.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code at para. [0072]. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 53 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 53 recites “the method comprising:….directly or indirectly incorporating genetic data…., wherein the genetic data is…analyzed data generated from the genetic sample…., collecting the genetic sample…”. In order to increase clarity and readability, the step of “collecting the genetic sample…” should be moved to before the recitation of “directly or indirectly incorporating genetic data…”, given the genetic sample must be collected first to then obtain genetic data generated from the genetic sample.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 35 recites “A technology platform…comprising: genomic data…nutritional information…, and a visual representation…” and claim 50 recites “A visual representation for providing information….”, which encompasses a platform or representation comprising pure information, or alternatively, paper comprising genomic data, nutritional information, and/or the visual representation (i.e. printed matter). Regarding the printed matter, to be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product. In the instant case, the “platform…comprising: genomic data…, nutritional information…, and a visual representation…” encompasses printed matter that as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader (i.e. conveying information). However, no functional relationship exists. See MPEP 2111.05. Therefore the printed matter does not have patentable weight. Dependent claims 36-49 and 51-52 only further specify what the printed matter is, and therefore does not have patentable weight for the same reasons discussed for claim 35 and 50.
Claim 53 recites “a compute and store server”. Applicant’s specification at para. [0093] discloses the remote compute and store server may be embodied as any type of computation or computer device capable of performing the functions described herein. Therefore, the compute and store server is interpreted to encompass a generic computer.
Claim 53 recites "directly or indirectly incorporating genetic data...".Applicant's specification at para. [0041] discloses that direct data incorporation occurs by the user entering information into the database, and indirect data incorporation occurs by a third-party entering the data of the user. Therefore, directly incorporating genetic data will be interpreted to mean the data is incorporated directly by the user, and indirectly incorporating genetic data will be interpreted to mean the user's data is incorporated by a party other than the user.
Claim 53 recites " wherein the genetic data is raw or statistically analyzed data generated from the genetic sample of the agricultural product that defines one or more gene markers of the agricultural product to be analyzed". The limitation defining how the genetic data was obtained is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted to only define the process in which the genetic data was previously made, but does not require a step of statistically analyzing data or generating data from a genetic sample" within the metes and bounds of the claim. See MPEP 2113 I.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 36, 39-41, 43-44, 47, and 53-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 36 recites “wherein the genetic data comprises at least one of genomic data…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the genetic data” because claim 35, from which claim 36 depends, recites “genomic data of an agricultural product…”, but does not recite genetic data. Furthermore, given claim 36 recites the “genetic data” may comprise “genomic data”, it appears the “genetic data” is not intended to be used interchangeably with “genomic data”. For purpose of examination, claim 36 is interpreted to mean “wherein the genomic data comprises at least one of genetic data, proteomic data,….”, given genetic data is considered a type of genomic data and claim 35 refers to “genomic data”.
Claim 39, and claims dependent therefrom, are indefinite for recitation of “wherein the visual representation is configured to be a heard management tool”. Examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses; (B) "wherein" clauses. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps"). However, the court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). In the instant case, the limiting effect of the wherein clause of claim 39 is not clear because, it is not clear if (1) the limitation “configured to be a herd management tool” is merely expressing an intended result of the ”visual representation…configured to provide breeding, marketing, or sale information” (which could be used for heard management) of claim 35 (which does not have patentable weight) or (2) if “configured to be a herd management tool” intends to further limit the visual representation itself in some way beyond being “configured to provide breeding, marketing, or sale information”. Clarification is requested via claim amendment. For purpose of examination, the wherein clause is interpreted to merely recite an intended result of the visual representation, which is not a claim limitation.
Claim 41 is indefinite for recitation of “wherein the visual representation is configured to enable the user to understand a genetic profile of the agricultural product to determine a breeding, sale, or marketing strategy…”. Claim 35, from which claim 41 depends, recites “a visual representation of the genomic data, wherein the visual representation is configured to provide breeding, marketing, or sale information…”. For similar reasons discussed above for claim 39, it is not clear if the wherein clause of claim 41 is intended to (1) recite an intended result of the visual representation (i.e. enabling a user to understand) or (2) further limit the contents of the visual representation in some way. If Applicant intends (2), it is not clear in what way the visual representation is intended to be limited, given the visual representation as recited in claim 35 already enables a user to understand a genetic profile to determine breeding, sale, or marketing strategy. Clarification is requested regarding the limiting effect of the wherein clause on the visual representation. For purpose of examination, the wherein clause is interpreted to merely recite an intended result of the visual representation, which is not a claim limitation.
Claim 43 is indefinite for recitation of “the average value for each trait” and “the current value of each trait”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 42, from which claim 43 depends, recites “one or more traits of the agricultural product” but does not recite an average value or a current value for each trait. Furthermore, given a trait of an agricultural product may include categorical traits such as color, the trait itself does not provide antecedent basis for an “average value” or “current value”. For purpose of examination, claim 43 is interpreted to mean “indicative of an average value for each trait…indicative of a current value of each trait”.
Claim 44 is indefinite for recitation of “the predetermined nutrient”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 35 does not recite a predetermined nutrient. For purpose of examination, claim 44 is interpreted to mean the visual representation includes “a nutritional recommendation associated with a predetermined nutrient that comprises…”.
Claim 47 is indefinite for recitation of “the one or more animals”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claims 35 and 45, from which claim 47 depends, does not recite “one or more animals”. It is noted that dependent claim 40 further limits the agricultural product to be one or more animals. For purpose of examination, claim 47 is interpreted to mean that the agricultural product is a cow or cattle.
Claim 53, and claims dependent therefrom, are indefinite for recitation of “the sample collection kit that is associated with the specific identifier”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 53 previously recites “ a sample collection kit…in response to receiving the registration details”, but does not require the sample collection kit is associated with the specified identifier. For purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted to mean collecting the genetic sample with the sample collection kit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 39 and 41 recite “wherein the visual representation is configured to be a heard management tool” and “wherein the visual representation is configured to enable the user to understand a genetic profile of the agricultural product to determine a breeding, sale, or marketing strategy…”, which have been interpreted as merely reciting an intended result of the visual representation as discussed under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above. The court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). See MPEP 2111.04 I. Therefore, the claims fail to further limit the subject matter of claim 35, from which they depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 35-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because:
Independent claim 35 recites “A technology platform…comprising: genomic data…, nutritional information…, and a visual representation…” and independent claim 50 recites “A visual representation for providing information…the visual representation comprising a numerical value…”., which encompasses data per se. MPEP 2106.03 I. states examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations. As such, an embodiment of the claims read on non-statutory subject matter (In re Nuijten 84 USPQ2d 1495 (2007)). Dependent claims 36-49 and 51-52 further limit the data itself of the technology platform or the visual representation, respectively, and therefore also encompass data per se. Applicant may overcome the rejection by amending the technology platform to include structural recitations.
Claims 53-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to one or more judicial exception without significantly more.
The Supreme Court has established a two-step framework for this analysis, wherein a claim does not satisfy § 101 if (1) it is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea, and (2), if so, the particular elements of the claim, considered “both individually and as an ordered combination,” do not add enough to “transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355). Applicant is also directed to MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The instantly claimed invention (claim 53 being representative) is directed to a method for managing an agricultural product. Therefore, the instantly claimed invention falls into one of the four statutory categories. [Step 1: YES]
Step 2A: First it is determined in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then it is determined in in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Under the MPEP § 2106.04, the Step 2A (Prong 1) analysis requires determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Claim 53 recites the following steps which fall under the mathematical concepts, mental processes, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas:
pairing a genetic sample of the agricultural product with a specific identifier, wherein the specific identifier comprises a bar code;
directly or indirectly incorporating genetic data from the user into a database of the remote compute and store server, wherein the genetic data is raw or statistically analyzed data generated from the genetic sample of the agricultural product that defines one or more gene markers of the agricultural product,
analyzing…the genetic data, wherein analyzing the genetic data comprises classifying the agricultural product for a response to a predetermined nutrient based on the one or more gene markers; and
generating….a visual representation of the agricultural product based on the analysis of the genetic data, wherein the visual representation is a numerical value configured to represent a breeding strategy, a marketing strategy, or a sale strategy.
The identified claim limitations falls into one of the groups of abstract ideas of mental processes, for the following reasons. In this case, pairing a genetic sample with an identifier encompasses mentally assigning a sample to a barcode identifier (i.e. associating information), which is a mental process. Directly or indirectly incorporating genetic data from a user into a database is a step of collecting information, which is a mental process (Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Analyzing genetic data by classifying a response to a predetermined nutrient based on gene markers involves analyzing one or more gene markers and determining the agricultural product will or will not respond to a particular nutrient based on a presence of one or more markers, which can be practically performed in the mind. Last, the step of generating a visual representation including a numerical value based on the analysis of the genetic data encompasses analyzing the genetic data to determine a numerical value representing a sale strategy (e.g. determine a price) and writing the value in the form of a plot via pen and paper, which is analogous to human mental work. Overall, the claims involve the mental process of collecting genetic information, analyzing it, and displaying a result of the analysis of genetic data, analogous to a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).That is, other than reciting the steps are carried out by a remote compute and store server (i.e. a computer), nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being practically performed in the mind.
Dependent claim 54 further limits the mental process of generating the visual representation to include a breeding suggestion, a market valuation, a market forecast, and a lineage tracker, and therefore is part of the abstract idea of claim 53 above. Therefore, claims 53-54 recite an abstract idea. [Step 2A, Prong 1: YES]
Step 2A: Prong 2: Under the MPEP § 2106.04, the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis requires identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons.
Claim 54 does not recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception and therefore is part of the judicial exception.
The additional elements of claim 53 include:
a remote compute and store server (i.e. a computer),
receiving, by a remote compute and store server, registration details from a user, wherein the registration details define one or more characteristics of the agricultural product;
providing a sample collection kit to the user in response to receiving the registration details; and
collecting the genetic sample with the sample collection kit that is associated with the specific identifier;
The additional elements of a computer and receiving data by the computer are generic computer components and/or functions, wherein the computer is merely used to carry out the abstract idea. The courts have found the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Regarding the additional elements of providing a sample collection kit to the user and collecting the genetic, these only serve to collect data for use by the abstract idea (i.e. collecting the genetic data), which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, the additionally recited elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity and, as such, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Thus, claims 53-54 are directed to an abstract idea. [Step 2A, Prong 2: NO]
Step 2B: In the second step it is determined whether the claimed subject matter includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The claims do not include any additional steps appended to the judicial exception that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the following reasons.
Claim 54 does not recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception and therefore is part of the judicial exception.
The additional elements of claim 53 include:
a remote compute and store server (i.e. a computer),
receiving, by a remote compute and store server, registration details from a user, wherein the registration details define one or more characteristics of the agricultural product;
providing a sample collection kit to the user in response to receiving the registration details; and
collecting the genetic sample with the sample collection kit that is associated with the specific identifier;
The additional elements of a computer and receiving data by the computer are conventional computer components and/or functions, wherein the computer is merely used to carry out the abstract idea. The courts have found the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
The additional elements of providing a sample collection kit to the user in response to receiving the registration details and collecting the genetic sample with the sample collection kit are well-understood, routine, and conventional. This position is supported by Kamper (DNA Collection with Perfomagene Nasal Swabs: Quantity, Quality, and Cost Effectiveness, 2012, California Polytech State University, pg. 1-26; cited on IDS filed 07 Sept. 2023) and McClure et al. (Collecting Genetic Material from Beef Cattle, 2005, MU extension, pg. 1-4; cited on IDS filed 07 Sept. 2023). Kamper discloses that collecting DNA for genomic testing has become much more common and affordable in the past few years, and blood sampling, hair sampling, and nasal swabs are three popular sources of tissue to extract DNA (pg. 4, para. 3). McClure et al. overviews genetic testing in the cattle industry (pg. 1, col. 1, para. 1-2), which includes there are several genetic tests commercially available for cattle, and that companies that provide genetic testing services typically provide the supplies necessary for sample collection, such as a needle and collection tube or an FTA card (pg. 3, col. 2, para. 4; FIG. 1-3 and 5; Table 1). Therefore, the additional elements of providing a sample collection kit and collecting a genetic sample using the kit are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Furthermore, even considered in combination, the above additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. This position is supported by Leachman et al. (US 2013/0346282 A1; cited on IDS filed 07 Sept. 2023 and 17 Aug. 2026), Stroman et al. (US 8,642,262 B2; Pub. Date: 4 Feb. 2014; cited on IDS filed 07 Sept. 2023), and Pickett (US 6,691,135 B2; Pub. Date: 10 Feb. 2004; cited on IDS filed 07 Sept. 2023), Leachman et al. discloses a system for managing livestock (Abstract) which includes obtaining DNA information from genetic tests of DNA samples from the livestock ([0063]-[0064]), using a computer to transmit data regarding the analysis of the DNA information to a remote computer of a user ([0143];[0167]; FIG. 8, e.g. information transmitted across network between analysis computer and user/remote computer). Stroman et al. discloses a system for managing livestock (Abstract), which includes a computer with a central database storing genetic information of livestock from genetic tests performed by an authorized user and that shares such information with client computers (col. 9, lines 11-15; col. 15, lines 31-36; col. 24, lines 19-27 and 51-60; FIG. 1 Main facility #105, central database #109, client computer #110). Similarly, Pickett et al. discloses a system for managing agricultural products (Abstract), which includes conducting a genetic test on an agricultural product to obtain genetic information on the agricultural product (col. 14, lines 34-41; col. 21, lines
62-64), and a central data management system with a database storing the product-related data, including the genetic data, in communication via a network with a subscriber terminal (col. 11, line 59 to col. 12, line 47). Accordingly, the combination of additional elements obtaining genetic information from a genetic test (e.g. by a collection kit), a computer, and transmitting data over a network are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception
Therefore, 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]
Therefore, the instantly rejected claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For additional guidance, applicant is directed generally to the MPEP § 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 35-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Leachman (2013).
Cited reference: Leachman et al., US 2013/0346282 A1; Pub. Date: 26 Dec. 2013, cited in IDS filed 07 Sept. 2023.
Regarding claims 35 and 50, Leachman discloses a technology platform comprising information and a visual representation (FIG. 1; FIG. 5-7, e.g. see visual representation with information; FIG. 4A, e.g. platform).
Further regarding claims 35 and 50, the technology platform and visual representation, as presently recited, encompasses a platform or representation comprising pure information, or alternatively, paper comprising genomic data, nutritional information, and/or the visual representation (i.e. printed matter). To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product. In the instant case, the “platform…comprising: genomic data…, nutritional information…, and a visual representation…” encompasses printed matter that as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader (i.e. conveying information). However, no functional relationship exists. See MPEP 2111.05.
Dependent claims 36-49 and 51-52 only further specify the printed matter no functional relationship in independent claims 35 and 50, and therefore these limitations do not have patentable weight for the reasons discussed above. See MPEP 2111.05 I.
Regardless, in the interest of compact prosecution, it is noted that Leachman discloses the following:
Regarding claims 35 and 50, Leachman discloses genetic merit information and presenting a genetic merit score card containing star rankings for the animal’s genetic merits, relative market value, and recommended feed regimens (i.e. genomic data, nutritional information, and a visual representation of the genomic data configured to provide marketing information in the form of a numeric value (FIG. 5-7; [0024] [0134]-[0135]), based on the genetic merit estimates for the animal (i.e. the genetic profile), which includes feed efficiency (i.e. the feedback comprises the nutritional recommendation is associated with the feed/predetermined nutrient) ([0063]-[0064]), and a plurality of information associated with the animal ([0015]; [0063]), e.g. the relative market value is determined by models that account for these external factors).
Regarding claim 36, Leachman discloses the genomic data is genetic data ([0064]; [0066])
Regarding claim 37, Leachman discloses the genomic data comprises DNA sequencing data ([0064]).
Regarding claim 38, Leachman discloses the visual representation comprises a market valuation (FIG. 6-7, e.g. relative market value).
Regarding claims 39 and 41, the limitations only recite an intended result of the visual representation and therefore do not have patentable weight. Therefore these claims are rejected for the same reasons discussed for claim 35.
Regarding claim 40, Leachman discloses the agricultural product is cattle ([0057]; [0124]).
Regarding claim 42, Leachman discloses the genetic merit score card contains traits including average daily gain, etc. (FIG. 6).
Regarding claims 45-46, 48, and 51, Leachman discloses the genetic merit scorecard includes a relative market value (i.e. a numerical value in a sale) representing a sale strategy (FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 47, Leachman discloses the agricultural product is cattle ([0057]; [0124]).Regarding claims 49 and 51¸ Leachman discloses the market value may include real-time market values ([0092]; [0147])
Regarding claim 50, Leachman discloses the genetic merit score card contains star rankings (numerical values) for the animal’s genetic merits, relative market value, and recommended feed regimens (i.e. a nutritional recommendation) (FIG. 6-7; [0024] [0134]-[0135]),
Therefore, Leachman anticipates the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 53-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leachman (2013) in view of Wagyu (2013) and Stroman (2014).
Cited references:
Leachman et al., US 2013/0346282 A1; Pub. Date: 26 Dec. 2013, cited in IDS filed 07 Sept. 2023;
Wagyu, Wagyu: Membership and Cattle Registration, 2013, pg. 1-6; cited in IDS filed 07 Sept. 2023; and
Stroman et al., US 8,642,262 B2; Pub. Date: 4 Feb. 2014; cited in IDS filed 07 Sept. 2023.
Regarding claim 53, Leachman shows a method for managing livestock (i.e. agricultural products) (Abstract) which includes the following steps:
Leachman discloses receiving, by a processor (i.e. a compute and store server) ([0008]), a plurality of information associated with the animal, including information regarding management information, nutritional conditions, environmental conditions relevant to the assessment of the animals (i.e. registration details defining characteristics of the agricultural product) from a user (FIG. 5; [0016]; [0131]-[0132]).
Leachman discloses the animal may be individually identified by electronic identification (EID) or Radio-Frequency identification (RFID) tags or buttons (i.e. a specific identifier) ([0055]), and the process for identifying the relative market value, which includes analyzing the genetic sample, is determined as part of the animal ID process ([0056];[0063]), which shows paring a specific identifier with the genetic sample.
Leachman discloses utilizing DNA sequence information (i.e. raw genetic data), including DNA marker information, of the animal ([0063]-[0064]; [0094]). Leachman et al. further shows the DNA information (i.e. genetic data that defines one or more gene markers) is inputted by a user to the computer (i.e. incorporated directly) ([0165]; FIG. 12A #110).
Leachman discloses analyzing, by a processor ([0008]), the DNA sequence information ([0016]; [0064]; FIG. 1, e.g. genetic merit estimates derived from DNA analysis), wherein analyzing the genetic data, which includes the DNA marker information (i.e. the one or more gene markers), comprises determining a feed efficiency (e.g. the ability to turn feed nutrients to milk or weight gain) for the animal, which is a classification of a response to feed intake (i.e. to a pre-determined nutrient, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of a nutrient is a substance that provides nourishment essential for growth and maintenance) ([0063]-[0064], e.g. genetic merits include feed efficiency; [0094]). Leachman discloses
Leachman discloses presenting, by a processor (i.e. a compute and store server) ([0008]), a genetic merit score card (i.e. visual representation) containing star rankings for the animal’s genetic merits, relative market value (i.e. a numerical value configured to represent a marketing strategy), and recommended feed regimens based on the genetic merit estimates for the animal (i.e. based on the analysis of the genetic data) (FIG. 6-7; [0024] [0134]-[0135]),
Regarding claim 54, Leachman further discloses the visual representation comprises a relative market value (i.e. a market valuation) (FIG. 6), breeding suggestion, and lineage tracker ([0012], e.g. genetic merit estimates may include pedigree, breed effects).
Further regarding claim 53, Leachman does not disclose the following limitations:
While Leachman discloses the genetic data is determined from genetic tests that involve obtaining samples of DNA from an individual animal ([0063]), Leachman does not disclose providing a sample collection kit to the user in response to receiving the registration details and collecting the genetic sample with the sample collection kit. However, this limitation was known in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as shown by Wagyu.
Wagyu discloses customer instructions for DNA testing of registered cattle (pg. 2, Animal Registration and DNA Testing), which comprises completing a DNA testing submission form requiring AWA registration numbers for parents (i.e. registration details), and then upon receipt of the submission form, mailing DNA collector kits to the customer (i.e. providing a sample collection kit in response to receiving the registration details) (pg. 3, DNA Testing, steps 1-3 and 7-8), and then collecting the sample by attaching them to the collector kit (pg. 3, step 8). Wagyu further discloses the sample collection kit is marked with the registration number of the cattle (i.e. the collection kit is associated with the specific identifier) and is used to collect the sample(s) of the animal (pg. 3, DNA Testing, step 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious, to one of ordinary kill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Leachman to have provided a sample collection kit to the user in response to receiving the registration details, collect the genetic sample with the sample collection kit, as shown by Wagyu (pg. 2-3, DNA Testing). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the method of Leachman with the method of Wagyu in order to obtain the samples of DNA of an individual animal required for determining the genetic data, which can then be used for deriving genetic merit estimates that facilitate an owner to evaluate the relative market value of their livestock, as shown by Leachman ([0003];[0008];[0063]). This modification would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Leachman discloses the genetic data is determined from genetic tests on obtained samples of DNA ([0063]), such that the method of Wagyu is applicable to Leachman.
Leachman further does not disclose the genetic data received directly from a user is incorporated into a database of the remote compute and store server. However, Leachman shows a computer system (i.e. a compute and store server) which allows a user to input DNA information (i.e. genetic data) ([0065]) and a database capable of storing data (Fig. 4A, Database #406; FIG. 8, Database #730). Furthermore, this limitation was known in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as shown by Stroman.
Stroman shows a method for managing livestock (Abstract), which includes a computer with a central database that stores genetic information of the livestock (Col. 9, lines 11-15; Fig. 1, #Main Facility 105 and central database #109), wherein the genetic information is input by a user (Col. 6, lines 46-51). Stroman further shows using a central database allows for users to collectively share and compare information with buyers (col. 15, lines 31-36).
It would have been further prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the method shown by Leachman, to have stored the raw genetic data from a user of Leachman into a database of the remote compute and store server, as shown by Stroman (col. 9, lines 11-15; Fig. 1), thus arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the method of Leachman. with the method of Stroman in order to allow users to collectively share and compare information with buyers, as shown by Stroman (col. 15, lines 31-36). This modification would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Leachman shows a database capable of storing data (Fig. 4A, Database #406; FIG. 8, Database #730).
Therefore, the invention is prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN L MINCHELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-6485. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 - 4:00 M-Th.
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.
/KAITLYN L MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights