Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment, filed on 3/13/2026, has been entered and acknowledged by the Examiner. Claims 1, 4-12 and 14-23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-12 and 14-23 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/2026, regarding 35 USC 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive since the amendment does not provide a significantly more that is not already present when the elements are considered separately.
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 1, 4-12 and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below.
Step 1:
The claimed method (claims 1-11), non-transitory computer-readable medium (claims 12-19), and system (claim 20) are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfies step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Independent claim 1 (12 and 20) recites the following limitations that can be practically performed in the mind:
comparing… segments from the genetic sequence information of the plurality of individuals;
based on the identical-by-descent segments, predicting a familial relative relationship between a first individual and a second individual;
Step 2A, Prong Two:
For Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements are:
computer implemented
obtaining, by a computing system, an opt-in election executed from an individua, wherein the opt-in election allows for presentation of information about a plurality of individuals in a database, wherein the database contains genetic sequence information of the plurality of individuals;
using bitwise parallel processing operations by the computing system, the genetic sequence information of each of a subset of individuals including a second individual;
determining identical by descent segments from the genetic sequence information compared, wherein the first individual and the subset of individuals are of the plurality of individuals;
generating, by the computing system and for display on a client device, a representation of a graphical user interface indicating the familial relative relationship between the first individual and the second individual.
“Computer implemented” and the three instances of “by the computing system” are “apply it” because they are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea of the claim on a computer.
The “receiving” step is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity because it is mere data gathering. The “receiving” step does not meaningfully limit the claim because it gathers data that is required for the mental process. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The “use of bitwise operations by the computing system” is using a match concept to perform the function.
The “providing” step for displaying does not provide significantly more because it is utilized a generic computer function to display data.
Step 2B:
For Step 2B, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exception. MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(B) identifies the list of cases in MPEP 2106. 05(d)(II) as available bases. Taking these aforementioned additional elements as an ordered combination, these additional elements add nothing that is not already present when the elements are considered separately.
As per dependent claims 4-11 and 14-19,
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The dependent claims 2 and 13 recite the following limitations directed to a mathematical concept abstract idea performed by a generic computer system:
the bitwise operations are performed in parallel by the computing system.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The dependent claims 4 and 14 (21) recite the following limitations directed to a mental process abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper of the independent claims:
identifying the segments based on a plurality of locations within a region of the genetic sequence information.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The dependent claims 5 and 15 (22) recite the following limitations directed to a mathematical concept abstract idea:
- representing, in respective bitwise arrays for each of a subset of individuals in the plurality of individuals, the locations that have opposite-homozygous values to that of the first individual with a one and the locations do not have opposite-homozygous values to that of the first individual with a zero;
- performing a bitwise OR operation over each of the respective bitwise arrays to form a result array;
The following limitation is directed to a mental process abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper of the independent claims:
- determining, where the result array indicates a zero, that the first individual and a particular individual of the subset of individuals share a segment within the region.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The dependent claims 6 and 16 (23) recite the following limitations directed to a mental process abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper of the independent claims:
a count of the subset of individuals matches a word length of a processor of the computing system
Step 2A, Prong One:
The dependent claims 7 and 17 recite the following limitations directed to a mental process abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper of the independent claims:
identifying the segments comprises: determining that the first individual and the second individual share a segment where there is no more than a predetermined rate of opposite homozygotes between the first individual and a particular individual within the region.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The dependent claims 8 and 18 recite the following limitations directed to a mental process abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper of the independent claims:
determining that the segment has a distance between consecutive opposite homozygotes that is above a predetermined threshold within the region.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The dependent claims 9 and 19 recite the following limitations directed to a mental process abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper of the independent claims:
determining that the first individual and the second individual share a segment where a distance between consecutive opposite homozygotes is above a predetermined threshold within the region.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The dependent claim 10 recites the following limitation directed to a mental process abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper of the independent claim 1:
determining that the particular segment overlaps with a disease gene;
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The recitation of “providing, to the first individual, a notification that the first individual is at risk of a disease associated with the disease gene” is direct to data transmission and a generic computer function.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The dependent claim 11 recites the following limitation directed to a mental process abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper of the independent claim 1:
inferring the familial relative relationship based on familial relative relationships between each of the first individual and the second individual and a third individual of the plurality of individuals.
Figure 4C. Note the far- right column, where the system has counted the number of shared sequences, and that this indicates the familial relationship by inferring.
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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) 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 1, 4-12 and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) (pre-AlA) as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. 20030172065 ("Sorenson") in view of Lyamichev (WO 2005/038041 A2), further in view of Hart (Automatic Control Program Creation Using Concurrent Evolutionary Computing. Jan. 2004), and further in view of Rolls (WO2007/083313).
Regarding claim 1, Sorenson discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining, by a computing system, a request for information about a plurality of individuals in a database, (Sorenson, [0037] “A second user interface can be used for adding genetic data to the data fields. An example of genetic data includes genetic markers and the haplotype of the individual. Analytical programming relates and alterably categorizes each data field. Computational means or executable programming identify and describe a genetic pattern for a given data set, for example, a family tree.” Sorenson, [0015] teaches that the adding genetic data is to identify previously unknown biological relationships, i.e., the data is a request to find relatives).
wherein the database contains genetic sequence information of the plurality of individuals; (Sorenson, ¶ [0033] “The database 25 can store data sets including genetic data 30 for a plurality of members and corresponding genealogical records 40 extending at least three, and often in excess of 10, successively lineal ancestral familial generations.”)
comparing, through use of bitwise operations by the computing system, the genetic sequence information of a first individual with the genetic sequence information of each of a subset of individuals including a second individual (Sorenson, [0050] “In a preferred embodiment, the unique genetic identifier of step 130 includes three segments (FIG. 5).” That the database is stored in a computer readable storage medium (Sorenson, [0037]) discloses the claimed bitwise operations because computer readable data is stored in bits. Note that this claim language differs from the detailed description, which uses bitwise operations to compare segments as opposed to determining segments);
determining identical-by-descent segments from the genetic sequence information compared, wherein the first individual and the subset of individuals are of the plurality of individuals (Sorenson, [0050]);
based on the identical-by-descent segments, predicting, by the computing system, a familial relative relationship between the first individual and the second individual; and (Sorenson, [0047] “In step 160, the individual's genetic data 30’ is compared with the genetic data 30 in the database 25 and a genealogical relationship is inferred in step 170 based on the degree of similarity of the data)
generating, by the computing system and for display on a client device, a representation of a graphical user interface indicating the familial relative relationship between the first individual and the second individual. (Sorenson, [0037] “The database 25 may be a part of a computer readable storage medium or a computer-implemented system for analyzing relatedness that also includes at least one user interface. ... Computational means or executable programming identify and describe a genetic pattern for a given data set, for example, a family tree.”)
While Sorenson discloses the claimed representation indicating the familiar relative relationship, Sorenson does not explicitly disclose that this representation is of a graphical user interface, or that it is provided by the computing system for display on a client device. However, Sorenson, [0037] discloses “A first user interface can be used for creating a plurality of data fields. Preferably, the data fields will be located within a hierarchal family tree within the database 25.” And Lyamichev discloses representation is of a graphical user interface (p. 7, lines 8-18). It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to display the updated hierarchal family tree of the user interface and Lyamichev’s disclosure to improve usability of locating data in the family tree (in other words, when a user comes back a second time, the family tree that they are shown should include previously updated information, meaning that the information that the user put in on their first visit is now displayed) and representing the target sequences.
While Sorenson and Lyamichev discloses using computing processing to carry out the steps/operations (¶ [0037], implemented with a computer) and it is well understood that a computer is capable of executing these operations parallelly, Sorenson Lyamichev do not explicitly disclose bitwise parallel processing operations to determine segments; however, Hart discloses use of bitwise parallel processing operations by the computing system (p. 32, where the bitwise parallel processing is utilized).
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to display the updated hierarchal family tree of the user interface Hart into Sorenson and Lyamichev to carry out computer processes parallelly.
While Sorenson discloses graphical interface for displaying presentations, Sorenson does not disclose opt-in election executed from an individual, wherein the op-in elections allows for presentation; Rolls further discloses opt-in election executed from an individual, wherein the op-in elections allows for presentation (Fig. 5; p. 27, lines 10-23, whereas User-B has indicated that the age of User-A is 38. In a checking step 520, the system checks to see if ((DB.sub.1).sub.N and (DB j).sub.M) are identical. If the two data bits are identical, as in the case, for example, with respect to data bit A2 in Fig. 4, these data bits are stored 530 in the memory and then in a subsequent step 540 the system determines whether there are more data bits in the two IDBs to compare and if positive next data bits are selected 550 in the two IDBs and processes begins again. In case the comparison step 520 yields a negative result, the system proceeds directly to determining step 540)
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to display the updated hierarchal family tree of the user interface Roll into Sorenson and Lyamichev to provide further selections of negative or positive results.
Regarding claim 4, Sorensen in view of Lyamichev, Hart and Rolls disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining the identical-by-descent segments comprises: identifying the identical-by-descent segments based on a plurality of locations within a region of the genetic sequence information (¶ [0032], Different regions of DNA have the ability to identify individuals, link them to immediate family groups, extended family or clan affiliations, and larger populations).
Regarding claim 5, Sorensen in view of Lyamichev, Hart and Rolls disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein identifying the identical-by-descent segments comprises:
representing, in respective bitwise arrays for each of a subset of individuals in the plurality of individuals, the locations that have opposite-homozygous values to that of the first individual with a one and the locations do not have opposite-homozygous values to that of the first individual with a zero (¶¶ [0032], [0033], [0037]; p. 81: with homozygous values);
performing a bitwise OR operation over each of the respective bitwise arrays to form a result array (¶¶ [0032], [0033], [0037]; comparing result); and
determining, where the result array indicates a zero, that the first individual and a particular individual of the subset of individuals share an identical-by-descent segment within the region (¶¶ [0032], [0033], [0037]; determining from the comparing result).
Regarding claim 6, Sorensen in view of Lyamichev, Hart and Rolls disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein a count of the first individual and the subset of individuals matches a word length of a processor of the computing system (Lyamichev, p. 6, base pair length).
Regarding claim 7, Sorensen in view of Lyamichev, Hart and Rolls disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein identifying the identical-by-descent segments comprises: determining that the first individual and the second individual share an identical-by-descent segment where there is no more than a predetermined rate of opposite homozygotes between the first individual and a particular individual within the region (p. 81, INVADER assays to determine their genotypes at 24 SNPs in order to identify samples homozygous for the wild- type or variant allele at a total of 6 different loci).
Regarding claim 8, Sorensen in view of Lyamichev, Hart and Rolls disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein determining that the first individual and the second individual share the identical-by-descent segment comprises: determining that the identical-by-descent segment has a distance between consecutive opposite homozygotes that is above a predetermined threshold within the region (Lyamichev, p. 81: homozygous values).
Regarding claim 9, Sorensen in view of Lyamichev, Hart and Rolls disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein identifying the identical-by-descent segments comprises: determining that the first individual and the second individual share an identical-by-descent segment where a distance between consecutive opposite homozygotes is above a predetermined threshold within the region (Lyamichev, p. 81 - allows for primer design which meet minimum Tm and maximum Tm requirements and minimum and maximum length requirements. For example, in the formula for each primer 5'-N[x]-N[x-l]- -N[4]-N[3]-N[2]-N[I]-3', x is selected).
Regarding claim 10, Sorensen in view of Lyamichev, Hart and Rolls disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the identical-by-descent segments include a particular identical-by-descent segment shared by the first individual and the second individual, the computer-implemented method further comprising: determining that the particular identical-by-descent segment overlaps with a disease gene (¶ [0009]); and providing, to the first individual, a notification that the first individual is at risk of a disease associated with the disease gene (¶ [0009], identified among intra familial relations as a portion of a broader lineal genetic inheritance, such as a proclivity toward cancers, heart disease, obesity and other conditions in some family lines; Lyamichev: wherein there is a risk or suspected risk of a disease state).
Regarding claim 11, Sorensen in view of Lyamichev, Hart and Rolls disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein predicting the familial relative relationship between the first individual and the second individual comprises inferring the familial relative relationship based on familial relative relationships between each of the first individual and the second individual and a third individual of the plurality of individuals (¶ [0050], A second segment is the familial relationship identifier. In FIG. 5, this segment is designated MFF822. In this non-limiting example, the individual represented by FIG. 5 would have an ancestor (his/her mother's (M) father (F), father (F)) that had been assigned the number "822").
Regarding claims 12, and 14-19, see discussion of claims 1 and 4-9 respectively for the same reason of rejection.
Regarding claims 20-23, see discussion of claim 1 and 4-6 for the same reason of rejection since they share similar scope.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUANKHANH D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3047. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, 10:00am-18:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached on 571-270-5626. 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 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 or 571-272-1000.
/TUANKHANH D PHAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights