DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/03/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-14 are drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 15-20 are drawn to a non-transitory medium which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 1and 15 have been amended to recite:
“receiving, at a system associated with a user interface, genetic information related to an individual within a family history that includes a plurality of individuals;
comparing, through the use of bitwise parallel operations, the genetic information with respective genetic information for the plurality of individuals to determine identical-by-decent segments;
determining a phenotype model based on the genetic information, the family history, the identical-by-descent segments, and environmental information associated with one or more of the plurality of individuals within the family history,
wherein determining the phenotype model includes: performing a logistic regression such that the genetic information including inference made based on the identical-by-descent segments and the environmental information are encoded as a multidimensional vector, wherein the encoding identifies one or more features including representations of alleles as part of the multidimensional vector;
displaying, as part of the user interface associated with the family history, a node associated with the individual as part of a family tree, wherein each node of the family tree corresponds to one of the plurality of individuals within the family history;
identifying a phenotype associated with the node based on the one or more features including the representations of alleles of the multidimensional vector; and
generating, within the user interface, a graphical indication of the phenotype designating at least one node within the family tree”
The limitations of “receiving, at a system associated with a user interface, genetic information related to an individual within a family history that includes a plurality of individuals;…determining a phenotype model based on the genetic information, the family history, the identical-by-descent segments, and environmental information associated with one or more of the plurality of individuals within the family history,…identifying a phenotype associated with the node based on the one or more features including the representations of alleles of the multidimensional vector” correspond to an abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity”. This is a method of managing interactions between people, such as user following rules and instructions. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer system does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping.
The computer system is described in the current specification as a generic computing component, such as in [0022], the specification recites “Computer system 100, which includes various subsystems as described below, includes at least one microprocessor subsystem (also referred to as a processor or a central processing unit (CPU)) 102. For example, processor 102 can be implemented by a single-chip processor or by multiple processors. In some embodiments, processor 102 is a general purpose digital processor that controls the operation of computer system 100.”.
Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The limitation of “wherein determining the phenotype model includes: performing a logistic regression such that the genetic information including inference made based on the identical-by-descent segments and the environmental information are encoded as a multidimensional vector, wherein the encoding identifies one or more features including representations of alleles as part of the multidimensional vector” corresponds to performing mathematical calculations, therefore the limitation falls within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 2-14 and 16-20 are ultimately dependent from claims 1, 15 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 15. Therefore, claims 2-14 and 16-20 recite the same abstract idea. Claims 2-14 and 16-20 describe a further limitation regarding the basis for determining a phenotype model and identifying a likelihood of a phenotype associated within a family tree. These are all just further describing the abstract idea recited in claims 1, 15, without adding significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims recite the additional elements of “a system associated with a user interface”, “comparing, through the use of bitwise parallel operations, the genetic information with respective genetic information for the plurality of individuals to determine identical-by-decent segments”, “displaying, as part of the user interface associated with the family history, a node associated with the individual as part of a family tree, wherein each node of the family tree corresponds to one of the plurality of individuals within the family history”, “generating, within the user interface, a graphical indication of the phenotype designating at least one node within the family tree”-claims 1 and 15, “the graphical indication within the user interface includes an editable field, a dropdown menu, or a search box for querying a database”-claim 11, which are hardware and software elements, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere instructions to apply/implement/automate an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular field or technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor and a user interface to perform identifying and generating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The newly added feature of “comparing, through the use of bitwise parallel operations, the genetic information with respective genetic information for the plurality of individuals to determine identical-by-decent segments” and the feature of data organization using bitwise parallel operations is found to be a well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field, as evidenced by Inglis et al. (hereinafter Inglis) (WO 2011145955 A1). In particular, Inglis dislcoses “performing bitwise operations between each corresponding first binary number sequence and second binary number sequence, such that a comparison is made between the first sequence and the second sequence” on page 8, lines 7-10. The well-understood, routine and conventional activities are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed below in the order in which they appear.
Applicant argues that claims as a whole are not directed to an abstract idea of methods of organizing human activity, since comparing genetic information such as human genetic information including billions of data point is not a task that may be practically performed by way of human activity, and evaluating genomic variants by executing bit-level logical operations across compressed binary vectors is a computer-specific architecture that is structurally incapable of being performed mentally or manually.
In response, Examiner submits that the limitation of “comparing, through the use of bitwise parallel operations, the genetic information with respective genetic information for the plurality of individuals to determine identical-by-decent segments” is not part of the abstract idea rejection, but this feature is directed to an additional element that corresponds to a well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field, as indicated in the rejection above.
Applicant argues that claims as a whole are directed to determining the phenotype model and not to logistic regression itself and the claims are not directed to an abstract idea of mathematical concepts.
In response, Examiner submits that the limitation of “wherein determining the phenotype model includes: performing a logistic regression such that the genetic information including inference made based on the identical-by-descent segments and the environmental information are encoded as a multidimensional vector, wherein the encoding identifies one or more features including representations of alleles as part of the multidimensional vector” corresponds to performing mathematical calculations, therefore the limitation falls within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations of “determining a phenotype model based on the genetic information, the family history, the identical-by-descent segments, and environmental information associated with one or more of the plurality of individuals within the family history,…identifying a phenotype associated with the node based on the one or more features including the representations of alleles of the multidimensional vector” correspond to an abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity”. This is a method of managing interactions between people, such as user following rules and instructions. Hence, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides a technological improvement by using specific low-level hardware execution mechanism (bitwise parallel operations to identify identical-by-descent segments) with a specific vector encoding mechanism (logistic regression of genetic and environmental data) to achieve a specific end result.
In response, Examiner submits that “comparing, through the use of bitwise parallel operations, the genetic information with respective genetic information for the plurality of individuals to determine identical-by-decent segments” and the feature of data organization using bitwise parallel operations is found to be a well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field, as indicated in the rejection above. The feature of “performing a logistic regression such that the genetic information including inference made based on the identical-by-descent segments and the environmental information are encoded as a multidimensional vector, wherein the encoding identifies one or more features including representations of alleles as part of the multidimensional vector” corresponds to performing mathematical calculations, which is directed to an abstract idea of mathematical concepts. Therefore, claims are not directed to a technological improvement.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DILEK B COBANOGLU whose telephone number is (571)272-8295. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 ET.
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, Obeid Mamon can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/DILEK B COBANOGLU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
