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 .
Applicants Amendment
Applicants’ amendment filed 4/22/2025 has been received and entered. Claims 1, 4 have been amended, and claims 2-3 were previously cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-18 are pending.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 2 in the reply filed on 1/12/2025 was acknowledged. In prosecution it was found that upon review of the claim amendments and in view of the initial search of the amended claims, it did not appear to be an undue burden to examine all three groups together as Applicants’ amendments to the product are consistent with the non-elected method claims incorporating and providing newly added claims with specific overlapping limitations provided in the initial search of the relevant art.
Accordingly, the restriction requirement is withdrawn.
Petition
Applicants petition to make special filed 11/3/2024 has been received and was Granted.
No extension of time was required in the response to the FAOM mailed 2/10/2025.
Priority
This application filed 11/3/2024 is a Continuation of PCT/CN2023/127963 filed 10/30/2023 and claims benefit to foreign application CN202310707878.8 filed 6/15/2023.
No comments regarding the priority information are provided in the instant response.
Information Disclosure Statement
It was noted that the listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement, citing for example, the citation of Patent ZL 2017111903.6 on page 2 of the specification.
No new IDS is provided nor comments are provided in the instant response.
Drawings
It was noted that several submissions with drawings have been submitted and that the submission filed 11/3/2024 as Appendix to the specification (file size 1.31 MB) contains color drawings.
The petition for color photographs and color drawings filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) filed 4/22/2025 is acknowledged.
However, there is no amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
Claims 1, 3-18 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/935640 (FAOM mailed).
Response to Applicant’s arguments
Applicants note the rejection is provisional and request that it be held in abeyance.
In response, the rejection can not be held in abeyance. In view of no specific arguments that support the claims are not obvious, it is maintained that although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each are drawn to probe sets on a liquid phase chip containing target SNPs that can be used to distinguish pig breeds. The present claims set forth it is a 10K liquid phase chip, while the claims of ‘640 provide for an indication of 50K chip array. For both, the array is a product by process based on comparison of pig breed Duroc, Large White and Landrace where it appears that the number and size of possible probes given or which can be obtained is the same given the generic nature and with no specific required probes required, it makes the difference between 10K and 50K obvious as the 10K and 50K may comprise the same identified probes.
A copy of the method used to identify the probes for ‘640 is provided for comparison.
A method for SNP marker selection and probe preparation for a 50K liquid phase chip used for multiple single nucleotide-polymorphism, which utilizes whole-genome sequencing data of pig breeds to mine and screen target SNP loci, then designs and optimizes probes for the target SNP loci, ultimately resulting in the determination of the probes; wherein the method includes the following steps:
Step 1, determining target site SNPs: based on whole-genome sequencing data of three pig breeds—Duroc, Large White, and Landrace—and aligning them to the whole-genome sequencing data of pig breeds, genomic regions with moderate linkage disequilibrium between markers were selected, and targeted capture sites were screened, i.e., target site SNPs;
Step 2, designing probes based on the determined target site SNPs: utilize the multiple single nucleotide polymorphism technologies to design 1-4 probes, each 110 bp in length, centered on each target SNP; each probe covers the target SNP, with a total probe coverage of 165 bp around the target SNP; wherein the principles for probe design are: 1) select probes with a content between 30% and 80%; 2) choose regions with a number of homologous areas ≤ 5; 3) select probe areas that do not contain SSR, N regions; and
Step 3, selecting and optimizing probes containing high-quality mSNPs: probes are hybridized and sequenced, and the genotyping quality of mSNPs, including target sites, is detected; set a missing rate of NA<0.1, a minimum allele frequency (MAF) ≥0.05, and heterozygosity (Het) <0.5 as standards to screen mSNPs, removing those that do not meet the standards; if the probe does not meet the genotype quality control requirements of mSNPs, delete the probe and the corresponding target site SNP, redesign new probes according to Steps 1 and 2, and continue to test and optimize the probes as per this step; wherein the mSNPs that meet the quality inspection requirements are finally used as the target sites of the 50K mSNP liquid-phase chip.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Applicants are remined that a timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention with respect to a ‘10K liquid phase chip’ is withdrawn.
Specifically, the amendment to provide a wherein clause further define the requirements of the chip and clarifying mSNP have addressed the basis of the rejection.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Response to Applicant’s arguments
Applicants note the amendment to the claims to require the number of probes, the number of targets and probe size length. Further, applicants note that the QTLdb database is well known and assessable, noting the guidance and examples of the specification that support the instant claims.
In response the amendments to the claims are acknowledged, however the indication of how many probes are present and general size requirement of a probe on a chip do appear to be sufficient to adequately describe effectively what the specific probes are or what Applicants discovered in the analysis of the databases. While it is generally acknowledged that the skilled artisan can search and compare databases to identify SNPs which may be informative to specific species or breed, the requirement of written description is not met by the ability to find the necessary elements required, but rather necessitates that adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method for isolating it as provided by the instant claims and by the guidance of the specification. The questin and basis of the rejection is not whether one could identify SNPs, the question is whether given the guidance of the specification if one would readily recognize the specific nature of the 8000-12000 probe sequences which are required on the chip, and which are necessary to capable of determining specific pig breeds when analyzing whole genome data. This not a question if such differences exist, it is whether given the present disclosure one would readily know what is described and required. It is noted that in review of the specification, the specific number of probes and probe size appear relative to only one approach of obtaining informative SNPs, and not specific or generally applied to a necessary requirement of what exists when analyzing the genome of the various pig breeds recited in the claims. Moreover, given the record as evidenced by Application No. 18/935640 many more informative SNPs may be identified, demonstrating that the generic method steps are not sufficient to define the number present as an important feature that describes the SNPs themselves as it appears relative to how the analysis is done.
As stated previously, claim 4 is directed to a SNP chip for pigs encompass 10K probes containing SNP loci with a specific allele frequency and particular disequilibrium which are representative of Duroc, Landrace and Large White pig breeds. Claim 1 is directed to a method for identifying SNP markers for presentation on liquid phase chip which assesses genomes of Duroc, Landrace and Large White pig breeds and additionally associating variants with gene annotated function annotations to define candidate loci for commercially valuable traits. As amended the claims provide a specific number and size of the probes, but fail to adequately describe what the sequences are. Again, the basis is not whether one can identify sequence differences between pig breed but rather what are the informative differences which support and enable the successful practice of claimed method and support a clear description of what sequences are present on the claimed chip.
It is acknowledged that the claims do set forth the use of Duroc, Landrace and Large White pig breeds genomes but they fail to provide the sequences, and require ‘pig 11.1 reference genome’ without providing the genome and the comparison using a QTLdb databases even though someone could access this or any database for the analysis. While generally recited, the necessary detailed sequences which were identified are clearly not provided in the present disclosure. In view of the specification and the breadth of the claims fails to provide the necessary information of what is present on the 10K chip and fails to provide the necessary starting materials to perform the analysis as recited and required of the claims. When the claims are analyzed in light of the specification, the invention encompasses an enormous number of nucleotide molecules representing the three breeds, an annotated database and an undefined reference database. The specification teaches and provides generic support for the terms set forth in the claims, but no specific information nor guidance on what the 10K probes are on a given chip or the specific necessary sequences required to analyze differences to obtain the functional requirements of the probe sequences set forth to be analyzed in the method claims. Next, it is determined whether a representative number of species have been sufficiently described by other relevant identifying characteristics (e.g. other nucleotide sequences or positions with in a specific gene or nucleic acid), specific features and functional attributes that would distinguish different members of the claimed genus. In the instant case the specification provides the literal support for the broad generic claims but fails to provide the necessary teaching and guidance for the specific probes required of the claims.
In the analysis, the fact pattern of Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19 USPQ2d 1111, makes clear that "applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the 'written description' inquiry, whatever is now claimed. The specification does not "clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed." The skilled artisan cannot envision the detailed chemical structure of the encompassed [nucleic acids, polymorphisms, amino acids, etc, use what is appropriate for the situation] regardless of the complexity or simplicity of the method of isolation. Adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method for isolating it. The nucleic acid itself is required. See Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (CAFC 1993), and Amgen Inc. V. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 18 USPQ2d 1016. The current situation is a definition of the compound solely based on its functional utility, as a polymorphism, without any definition of the particular polymorphisms claimed.
Finally, University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404, 1405 held that:
To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe an invention and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that "the inventor invented the claimed invention." Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (1997); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (" [T]he description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed."). Thus, an applicant complies with the written description requirement "by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious," and by using "such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed invention." Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.
An adequate written description of a DNA, such as the cDNA of the recombinant plasmids and microorganisms of the '525 patent, "requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties," not a mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention. Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1171, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, "an adequate written description of a DNA requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method for isolating it; what is required is a description of the DNA itself." Id. at 1170, 25 USPQ2d at 1606.
In the claims and guidance of the instant application, the provided information regarding nucleic acid probes of the 10K chip and starting sequences and relevant annotated databases is lacking, and do not constitute an adequate written description of the broad subject matter of the claims, and so one of skill in the art cannot envision the detailed chemical structure of the nucleic acids encompassed by the claimed arrays. Adequate written description requires more than a statement that nucleic acids with a particular quality are part of the invention and reference to a potential method for their identification. Thus, having considered the breadth of the claims and the provisions of the specification, it is concluded that the specification does not provide adequate written description for the claims.
Accordingly, for the reasons above and of record the rejection is maintained.
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, 3-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim analysis
Independent claims 1 and 4 have been amended and still directed to a 10K chip that contains probes with target SNP loci of Duroc, Landrace and Large White pig breeds and a method generally directed to identifying the probes which would be used to generate the 10K chip. Dependent claims provide for method steps on using the chip such as buffer conditions and elements related to the intended use of the chip for screening using hybridization conditions as set forth in claim 9 and the method of use.
For step 1 of the 101 analysis, the claims are found to be directed to a statutory category of both methods/processes and a product.
For step 2A of the 101 analysis, the judicial exception of the claims for the method are the steps describing the analysis of sequence data to identify possible probe sequences and for the product is the description of sequences which describe and represent sequences that exist in nature for Duroc, Landrace and Large White pig breeds. The amendment to the claims does not appear to affect the judicial exception as it generically sets forth the number of probes and size which are present on the chip. The judicial exception still is the analysis of the data to derive the chip or to apply the use of the chip to analyze DNA samples to identify breeds.
Given the guidance of the specification and art of record, the necessary steps of identifying SNPs require steps of aligning and comparing sequence to arrive at the identification of SNPs present in Duroc, Landrace and Large White pig breeds are found to be instructional steps. For the product chip, it is found to be the description of naturally occurring sequences and the possible correlation of annotation of SNP which may related to observable traits. The guidance of the specification for practicing the claims requires computing similarity scores and general analysis for correlation with the broad steps of receiving genome data. The judicial exception is a set of instructions for analysis of sequence data and appears to fall into the category of Mathematical Concepts, that is mathematical relationships that may be in QTL or annotations for sequences and SNPs in a genome, and also appears to fall into the category of Mental Processes, that is concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). In this case, the steps for identification are recited in a generic high level way which appears to encompass observable differences of sequences and assessment of annotations which may indicate the correlation of a SNP to a given trait when such data exists. The breadth of “detecting” and “analyzing” encompasses non-transformative visual assessment of an individual for given sequence information and possible phenotype(s) which are coupled with prior knowledge of the correlation of said phenotype(s) with the presence of particular SNPs/genotype(s). This breadth does not impose a meaningful limit on the claim scope, such that all others are not precluded from using the natural principle. Although the claims recite using the identified SNPs to create a chip for use in hybridization assays, the courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; for example, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). The recited SNPs at loci are interpreted as naturally occurring sequences present in the Duroc, Landrace and Large White pig breeds. Computing, constructing datasets and using statistical models was well understood, conventional, and routinely performed in the art at the time the application was filed. Furthermore, the limitation of genotyping breeding individuals at a plurality of markers or alleles does not change the steps to be performed. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) for a discussion on adding insignificant extra-solution (both pre-solution and post-solution) activity to the judicial exception. See also MPEP § 2106.05(h) for a discussion on generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims appear to fall into the category of Mathematical Concepts, as it applies the use of statistics and mathematical relationships in analyzing probabilities, and also into the category of mental processes, as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because there is no apparent complexity to or amount of data that is collected and analyzed as presently claimed.
Recent guidance from the office requires that the judicial exception be evaluated under a second prong to determine whether the judicial exception is practically applied. In the instant case, the claims do not have an additional element beyond identifying useful SNP loci sequences for probes and providing such probes a liquid phase chip format. This judicial exception requires steps recited at high level of generality and for the method are only stored on a non-transitory medium or on a computer, and indication to provide naturally occurring sequences in a chip format, which is not found to be a practical application of the judicial exception as broadly set forth in the instant claims.
For step 2B of the 101 analysis, each of the independent claims recites additional elements and are found to be the steps of obtaining sequence data in silico, and while probes can be generate the chip represents the presentation of these naturally occurring sequence in a generic but known format used for hybridization assays. As such, the claims do not provide for any additional element to consider under step 2B which appears to provide for significantly more, nor does it appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For the method and possible use of a general purpose computer, it is noted that in explaining the Alice framework, the Court wrote that "[i]n cases involving software innovations, [the step one] inquiry often turns on whether the claims focus on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool." The Court further noted that "[s]ince Alice, we have found software inventions to be patent-eligible where they have made non-abstract improvements to existing technological processes and computer technology." Moreover, these improvements must be specific -- "[a]n improved result, without more stated in the claim, is not enough to confer eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea . . . [t]o be patent-eligible, the claims must recite a specific means or method that solves a problem in an existing technological process." As indicated in the summary of the judicial exception above and in view of the teachings of the specification, the steps are drawn to analysis of sequence data. While the instruction are stored on a medium and could be implemented on a computer, together the steps do not appear to result in significantly more than a means to compare sequences. The judicial exception of the method as claimed can be performed by hand and in light of the previous claims to a computer medium and in light of the teaching of the specification on a computer. In review of the instant specification the methods do not appear to require a special type of processor and can be performed on a general purpose computer.
Response to Applicant’s arguments
Applicants summarize the basis of the rejection and outline the analysis required for 101 patent eligibility. Applicants argue that the additional features recited in the amended claims provide a concrete method and the requirements are significantly more and provide an improvement in the analysis of pig breeds.
In response, the amendments have been acknowledged, however there is no evidence or surprising finding that there are differences between the genomes of pig breeds. It is acknowledged that there appears to have been an analysis of the various genomes and identification of 10,200 target SNP which can be used to distinguish the breeds, however this analysis is simply based on observation of the differences. There are no specific sequences provided in the instant specification and the indication that one could find 10K differences does not appear to be significantly more, and without any details does not appear to provide an improvement to the technology. Given the broad general guidance and nature of the claims and the support disclosure, it appears that the claims are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process of assessing what SNPs are associated with which breed of pig, and using that information to assess DNA samples or to create a chip with probes which could be used in analysis methods. Given the analysis above and evidence of record, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant is reminded that one way to overcome a rejection for non-patent-eligible subject matter is to persuasively argue that the claimed subject matter is not directed to a judicial exception. Another way for the applicants to overcome the rejection is to persuasively argue that the claims contain elements in addition to the judicial exception that either individually or as an ordered combination are not well understood, routine, or conventional. Another way for the applicants to overcome the rejection is to persuasively argue that the claims as a whole result in an improvement to a technology. Persuasive evidence for an improvement to a technology could be a comparison of results of the claimed subject matter with results of the prior art, or arguments based on scientific reasoning that the claimed subject matter inherently results an improvement over the prior art. The applicants should show why the claims require the improvement in all embodiments.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The closest art of record appears to be Yang et al. who teaches that genome-wide SNP data unveils the globalization of domesticated pigs and provides that their analysis provided 60K of SNP data to study the affects of domestication in various breeds of pigs including breed in China. Hindrik et al. teach more specific methods for mining for single nucleotide polymorphisms in pig genome sequence data which is publicly available and the means to identify true genetic variants. Wang et al. teach a genome-wide detection of copy number variations using SNP genotyping arrays in swine and a demonstration for the use of SNPs and more complex genomic arrangements. CN 107967409 is provided for a more specific disclosure of SNPs and location thereof as possible probe sequences of pig breeds. While the art teaches that SNP data in pig breed could be identified and used in genetic analysis, the art of record fails to provide the necessary guidance and requirements of the claims that the probes are representative of candidate loci traits, located in QTL regions and the necessary annotation databases needed to anticipate or more generally to practice the instant claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph T Woitach whose telephone number is (571)272-0739. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8:00-4:00.
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, Karlheinz R Skowronek can be reached on 571 272-9047. 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.
/Joseph Woitach/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights