DETAILED ACTION
This Office action has been issued in response to amendment filed January 13, 2026.
Claims 1, 3-6. 8, 10-13, 15 and 17-20 have been amended. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending. Applicant’s arguments are carefully and respectfully considered and some are persuasive, while others are not. Accordingly, rejections have been removed where arguments were persuasive, but rejections have been maintained where arguments were not persuasive. Also, a new rejection based on the newly added amendments have been set forth. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected and this action has been made FINAL, as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments directed to 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The amended claims are not effective to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection. The claim recited limitations are determining a tree node or family tree is a mental process. The amended claim recited limitations are selection of expand button, revealing display, a hidden portion of the family tree not previously displayed. The limitation can be a user evaluating which relations to display or not, displaying user preferred relations (e.g., user can modify, select and display particular family relations or chose whichever relation that they like or meet criteria) or displaying any relation which can be on and off for certain time (e.g., opt in or opt out). The amended claim recited limitations are mental process. Further, the graphical user interface is a generic computer component and the claim fails to define whether the technological limitations are being used as a tool to improve the recited judicial exception. As such, the limitations or additional elements as recited in the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, 35 USC 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
Applicant’s remarks and arguments presented on 01/13/26 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection presented in this office action.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 USC 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, e.g., claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 1. The method of claims 1-7, system of claims 8-14 and non-transitory computer-readable medium of claims 15-20 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. Prong one of the 2019 PEG:
1. In accordance with Step 2A, prong one, the limitations are directed to additional elements include computer, system, processor, memory and non-transitory computer-readable medium.
2. The limitations are recited in claims 1, 8 and 15 are an application running on a client device, an initial set of tree nodes corresponding to relatives of a target individual, rendering, for display in a graphical user interface presented on the client device running the application, a family tree comprising the initial set of tree nodes; and generating, for display relative to the tree node within the graphical user interface and based on determining that the tree node is connected to second tree nodes, relative associated with target individual, an expand button selectable to render the second tree node within the graphical user interface etc., is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. That is, other than reciting computer, system, memory, processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium., nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The steps can be done my nominally, insignificantly or user can perform each of the tasks merely manually and can consider as a data gathering performance. Further, the limitations also can interpret that a user generating family trees, connecting, making relations among the family members based on individual characters, attributes, the relations can associate with siblings, cousins, biological characters (e.g., DNA, RNA), categorize different types of relations, adding or deleting members in different times (e.g., session) and using interface to represent these relationships. Thus, the limitations are directed to abstract mental process and can be manually performed by human. If a claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls with mental process grouping of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG: the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computer, system, processor, memory and non-transitory computer-readable medium in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality or insignificant extra solution activity such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, Accordingly, these additional element (computer, system, processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium.) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recited additional limitations, such that the initial set of tree nodes vertically limited by a threshold number of generations from the target individual and laterally limited by a predetermined set of relationships in relation to the target individual, determining that a tree node within the initial set of tree nodes is connected to an additional tree node beyond the threshold number of generations or the predetermined set of relationships. These limitations are a context which encompasses maintaining, determining relationships among the peoples who have genetical or biological relationships. Also, making relationship who does not have genetical or biological relationships. The matters also describing merely just relationships among peoples or generations. The claim recited limitations are determining a tree node or family tree is a mental process. The amended claim recited limitations are selection of expand button, revealing display, a hidden portion of the family tree not previously displayed. The limitation can be a user evaluating which relation to display or not, displaying user preferred relation or displaying any relation which can be on and off for certain time. The amended claim recited limitations are mental process. Further, the graphical user interface is a generic computer component. The claim fails to define whether the technological limitations are being used as a tool to improve the recited judicial exception. The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality, they are directed to extra solution activity or they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner (MPEP § 2106.05(f); MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)). Storing and retrieving information in memory (e.g. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc..). Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amount to nothing more than generic computer function merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by human thinking. Using generic computing components (e.g., computer, system, processor, processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract and is not enough to transform an abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible. Further, the subject matter can also interpret as well-understood, routine and conventional functions (e.g., electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document/object, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank….). There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. They are merely collective functions provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2 and 3 recited limitations of a predetermined maximum limit, increasing or adding threshold number, generating until the number of tree nodes reaches the predetermined maximum limit, selecting an initial set of tree nodes, sustaining in an application cache, unselected tree nodes. These limitations describing making/evaluating relationships among the same generation by set certain number of peoples and expand or add as needed. The limitations are mental process. Dependent claims 4 recited receiving a user selection of the expand button, expanding the family tree in the direction of the relationship indicated by the expand button, which are input step by a user. The limitations are mental process. Dependent claim 5 recited the limitations of expanding vertically to increase number of generations or expanding laterally to increase a number of relationship. These limitations are describing extending the relationships among a generations (e.g., sibling, cousin etc.). The limitations are abstract mental process. Dependent claim 6 recited the limitations of change the expand button to a collapse button, collapsing base on a user selection by removing the second tree nodes. These limitations are describing deleting certain group or people among a generation. The limitations are mental process. Dependent claim 7 recited the limitations of generating a relationship label, display a part of the family tree. These limitations describing making a category or group within the family relationships. The limitations are mental process. Dependent claims 8-14 are same scope as claims 2-7 and are similarly rejected. Dependent claims 16-20 are same scope as claims 2-7 and are similarly rejected. The claim recited limitations are do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. As such, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 103
6. 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 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kranik et al. (US 2010/0199222 A1), hereinafter Kranik in view of Nguyen et al. (US 2021/0034647 A1), hereinafter Nguyen.
As for claim 1, Kranik teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: loading, at an application running on a client device, an initial set of tree nodes corresponding to relatives associated with a target individual in a family tree (see [0006], interactive family tree representation),
the initial set of tree nodes vertically limited by a….number of generations from the target individual and laterally limited by a….set of relationships in relation to the target individual (see [0071], e.g., a user interact, update and/or modify a family tree and/or family tree representation via the displayed family tree representation. The family tree modified and a representation of the modified family tree displayed in real time as the user interacts with the family tree, [0077], e.g., add relation.fwdarw.parents" option, the family tree module may present a template for a mother and a father for the selected family member);
rendering, for display in a graphical user interface presented on the client device running the application (see [0007], e.g., interface functionality that allows a user to perform any one or combination of selecting family members, updating and/or modifying the family tree, or editing one or more display options with respect to how the family tree is represented and displayed),
a visual representation of the family tree comprising the initial set of tree nodes corresponding to the relatives associated with the target individual; determining that a tree node within the initial set of tree nodes is connected to a second tree node beyond the….number of generations or the…..set of relationships, the second tree node corresponding to a relative associated with the target individual in the family tree (see [0056], e.g., nodes represent family members and the edges represent lineage or relationship between the family members, [0086], allowing for quick and easy expansion of family relationships that are maintained and stored in the patient database and/or define the relationships of a newly created family);
generating, for display relative to the tree node within the graphical user interface and based on determining that the tree node is connected to the second tree node, an expand button selectable to render the second tree node within the graphical user interface (see [0054] select from the patient database an initial family member from which to build the family tree. This target family member the proband or merely a family member from whom the user would like to expand the tree and define relationships. The user also adds a family relationship to the family tree being created or built based on the person's relationship with the initial or target family member, [0056]);
and in response to a selection of the expand button, revealing, for display in the graphical user interface, a…..portion of the family tree not previously displayed, wherein the….portion of the family tree comprises the second tree node (see [0007], e.g., family tree, or editing one or more display options with respect to how the family tree is represented and displayed, [0009], e.g., graphical user interface and displaying a representation of the family tree with the at least one modification, [0061], e.g., in response to user pressing the button and displaying the patients that meet the criteria).
Kranik teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly teach the limitations of “a threshold number of generations; predetermined set of relationships; the threshold number of generations or the predetermined set of relationships; hidden portion of the family tree or the hidden portion of the family tree”. Although, Kranik teaches the limitations of a family study where genetic and/or hereditary information is being analyzed ([0041]). However, in the same field of endeavor, Nguyen teaches the limitations of “a threshold number of generations; predetermined set of relationships; the threshold number of generations or the predetermined set of relationships; hidden portion of the family tree or the hidden portion of the family tree” (see [0058], e.g., nodes assigned to community classified community with a threshold number, [0061], e.g., graph may represent a trellis of an inter-window hidden Markov model (HMM), a sequence of a plurality of node groups, label of genetic communities or ethnicities for the window to display).
Kranik and Nguyen both references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are from the same field of endeavor, such as finding, viewing, determining relationships among family members, pedigrees, generating tree, displaying family tree. User interface for viewing plurality of members in the family.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nguyen’s teaching to Kranik’s system to allow users to create one or more genealogical profiles of the user (e.g., ancestors, relatives, friends, and other people of interest) who are added or selected by the user or suggested by the computing server based on the genealogical records and/or genetic records. Thus provides user’s privacy, setting and authorization. Selecting genealogical profiles allow information generated from the user’s genetic dataset to be linked to the user profile and to one or more family trees (see Nguyen, [0027]).
As for claim 8,
The limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claim 1 because claim 8 is a system claim for implementing the steps as recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nguyen’s teaching to Kranik’s system to allow users to create one or more genealogical profiles of the user (e.g., ancestors, relatives, friends, and other people of interest) who are added or selected by the user or suggested by the computing server based on the genealogical records and/or genetic records. Thus provides user’s privacy, setting and authorization. Selecting genealogical profiles allow information generated from the user’s genetic dataset to be linked to the user profile and to one or more family trees (see Nguyen, [0027]).
As for claim 15,
The limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claim 1 because claim 15 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim for implementing the steps as recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nguyen’s teaching to Kranik’s system to allow users to create one or more genealogical profiles of the user (e.g., ancestors, relatives, friends, and other people of interest) who are added or selected by the user or suggested by the computing server based on the genealogical records and/or genetic records. Thus provides user’s privacy, setting and authorization. Selecting genealogical profiles allow information generated from the user’s genetic dataset to be linked to the user profile and to one or more family trees (see Nguyen, [0027]).
As to claim 2, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Kranik and Nguyen teaches:
wherein loading the initial set of tree nodes comprises: determining that a number of tree nodes within the threshold number of generations and within the predetermined set of relationships is less than a predetermined maximum limit; and based on determining that the number of tree nodes is less than the predetermined maximum limit, expanding the number of tree nodes by increasing the threshold number of generations until the number of tree nodes reaches the predetermined maximum limit (see Kranik, [0054], [0058]; Also see, Nguyen, [0058]).
As to claim 3, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Kranik and Nguyen teaches:
wherein revealing the hidden portion of the family tree comprises: selecting the initial set of tree nodes from family tree data related to connections among the target individual and the relatives of the target individual; sustaining, in an application cache, unselected tree nodes from the family tree data that correspond to relatives associated with the target individual; and in response to the selection of the expand button, selecting the second tree node from the unselected tree nodes (see Kranik, [0043], [0058], [0061]; Also see, Nguyen, [0061]).
As to claim 4, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Kranik and Nguyen teaches:
further comprising: receiving a user selection of the expand button within the graphical user interface, wherein the expand button indicates a direction of a relationship between the tree node and the second tree node; and rendering, within the family tree presented in the graphical user interface and in response to the user selection of the expand button, the second tree node by expanding the family tree in the direction of the relationship indicated by the expand button (see Kranik, [0054], [0061]).
As to claim 5, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Kranik and Nguyen teaches:
wherein expanding the family tree comprises: expanding vertically to increase a number of generations presented in the family tree; or expanding laterally to increase a number of relationships within a shared generation presented in the family tree (see Kranik, [0010]).
As to claim 6, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Kranik and Nguyen teaches:
further comprising: modifying, in response to the user selection of the expand button, the expand button to change the expand button to a collapse button selectable to collapse the family tree in a new direction opposite the direction of the relationship between the tree node and the second tree node; and collapsing, based on a user selection of the collapse button, the family tree by removing the second tree node from presentation within the graphical user interface (see Kranik, [0009], [0043]).
As to claim 7, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Kranik and Nguyen teaches:
wherein rendering the family tree in the graphical user interface comprises: generating a relationship label for an individual having a relationship to the target individual, the relationship label indicating the relationship; and rendering, for display as part of the family tree, the relationship label relative to tree nodes corresponding to the individual having the relationship to the target individual (see Kranik, [0057]).
Claims 9-14 corresponds in scope to claims 2-7 and are similarly rejected.
Claims 16-20 corresponds in scope to claims 2-7 and is similarly rejected.
Prior Arts
9. US 2020/0135296 A1 teaches a family tree building server, and/or a social networking system. Receives genetic data from the genetic data extraction service server and stores the genetic data in the data store of the computing server. One or more methodology store at least partially, within the main memory or within the processor (e.g., within a processor's cache memory) ([0029], [0138]).
US 2005/0149497 A1 teaches one or more individual node records are compared. The comparisons include adjustments based on other records. For example, if a draft registration exists for an individual, a birth certificate indicating the person was born only five years prior to the registration date is likely not for the same person. Each comparison between two individual node records results in a factor P(s) that quantifies the likelihood that the two records represent the same person ([0036]).
EP1550959 A1 teaches tree or family tree refer to a hierarchical structure that links generations in parent-child relationships. It should be understood that a tree may be as simple as one parent and one child or as complex as the theoretical "single family tree" that links all individuals. Thus, any specific tree may be a part of another tree; the two may overlap, or one may completely include the other ([0020]).
Also see, US 20160216857, US 20140082568, US 9959013, WO2022243914, US 9330418, US 20050149497, EP1550959A2, US 2021082167, US 11514627, US 20120131061, US 8095567, US 8768970, US 20120218289, EP1550959A3, US 8786603, US 8794574, US 20120240038, US 20160048517, US 20180329911, US 20130018844, US 20110029564, these reference also read the claim recited limitation. These references are state of the art at the time of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
10. The examiner suggests, in response to this Office action, support being shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1), 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(f)).
11. The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action (see MPEP § 7.96). Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
12. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Daniel A Kuddus whose telephone number is (571) 270-1722. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday 8.00 a.m.-5.30 p.m. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays from 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.
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 processing is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from the either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.