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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant has amended claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 20, cancelled claims 5, 9, and 11, and added new claims 21-23 in the filed amendment on 1/26/2026.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12-23 are pending in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1, as presently amend, to include “identifying genetic attribute patterns of the individuals by determining a largest shared attribute combination via pairwise comparison, partitioning the individuals into a first subset of individuals exhibiting at least a threshold fraction of the largest shared attribute combination and a second subset of individuals not in the first subset, and storing a shared attribute combination exhibited by all members of the first subset as a genetic attribute pattern” that is directed to eligible subject matter for at least the reason that amended claim 1 includes improvements to a technology or technical field.
According to specifications 73, 78, 82, a technical improvement provided by the subject matter of amended claim 1 is more computationally efficiently identifying the claimed "genetic attribute pattern" within the claimed "genetic attributes representing a plurality of individuals," thereby reducing the number of processor cycles, memory, power, or other computational costs to identify such patterns relative to alternative methods. "In a further embodiment of a computationally efficient method for compiling co-associating attributes, a divide-and-conquer approach can be used to greatly increase the efficiency of identifying pangenetic attribute combinations....". Thus, the Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1, as presently amended, includes "significantly more than [an] abstract idea itself," as the operations thereof provide improvements to a technology or technical field (e.g., allowing for genetic attribute patterns to be identified within the available genetic attributes of a set of individuals while using significantly fewer processor cycles, less memory, less power, and/or less of other computational resources). Applicant submits that independent claims 12 and 20 are directed to eligible subject matter for similar reasons. Further, Applicant submits that each of the dependent claims are also directed to eligible subject matter for at least the reason that they depend on claims containing eligible subject matter. In view of the above, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitation “allowing for genetic attribute patterns to be identified within the available genetic attributes of a set of individuals while using significantly fewer processor cycles, less memory, less power, and/or less of other computational resources” is not recited in claims.
In addition:
a) step 2A Prong One:
Claim 1,12, 20 recite abstract limitations such as
(identifying genetic attribute patterns of the individuals by determining a largest shared attribute combination via pairwise comparison, partitioning the individuals into a first subset of individuals exhibiting at least a threshold fraction of the largest shared attribute combination and a second subset of individuals not in the first subset;
determining associations between the genetic attribute patterns within the genetic attributes of the individuals and their respective responses corresponding to the questionnaire;
determining, from the associations, correlations between the health-related content and the genetic attribute patterns;
based on the correlations between the health-related content and the genetic attribute patterns, clustering the individuals into groups; and
based on the correlations and the groups, making a recommendation regarding the health- related content to an individual of the plurality of individuals) are directed to judicial exception of mental processes. One can mentally select an application and as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of identifying, determining, determining, partitioning, determining, clustering and making. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
b) step 2A Prong Two:
The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because
additional elements of program instructions, one or more processor, computing system (in claims 12, 20) and memory (in claim 20) that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component for obtaining that are well understood routine and conventional activities.
The additional limitation of
(obtaining genetic attributes representing a plurality of individuals;
presenting, by way of a computer-mediated interface, a questionnaire to each of the individuals;
receiving, by way of the computer-mediated interface, respective responses corresponding to the questionnaire from each of the individuals; and
storing a shared attribute combination exhibited by all members of the first subset as a genetic attribute pattern) that are insignificant extra solution activities which are well understood routine and conventional activities, see (Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec) and See (MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp), and the additional limitation of (wherein the questionnaire relates to health-related content) that just indicates question related to health content.
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.
c) step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements of program instructions, one or more processor, computing system (in claims 12, 20) and memory (in claim 20) that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component for obtaining that are well understood routine and conventional activities.
The additional limitation of (obtaining genetic attributes representing a plurality of individuals; presenting, by way of a computer-mediated interface, a questionnaire to each of the individuals; receiving, by way of the computer-mediated interface, respective responses corresponding to the questionnaire from each of the individuals; and storing a shared attribute combination exhibited by all members of the first subset as a genetic attribute pattern) that are insignificant extra solution activities which are well understood routine and conventional activities, see (Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec) and See (MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp), and the additional limitation of (wherein the questionnaire relates to health-related content) that just indicates question related to health content.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
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, 6-8, 10, 12-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 12, 20 similarly recite limitations
obtaining genetic attributes representing a plurality of individuals;
presenting, by way of a computer-mediated interface, a questionnaire to each of the individuals, wherein the questionnaire relates to health-related content;
receiving, by way of the computer-mediated interface, respective responses corresponding to the questionnaire from each of the individuals;
identifying genetic attribute patterns of the individuals by determining a largest shared attribute combination via pairwise comparison, partitioning the individuals into a first subset of individuals exhibiting at least a threshold fraction of the largest shared attribute combination and a second subset of individuals not in the first subset, and
storing a shared attribute combination exhibited by all members of the first subset as a genetic attribute pattern;
determining associations between the genetic attribute patterns within the genetic attributes of the individuals and their respective responses corresponding to the questionnaire;
determining, from the associations, correlations between the health-related content and the genetic attribute patterns;
based on the correlations between the health-related content and the genetic attribute patterns, clustering the individuals into groups; and
based on the correlations and the groups, making a recommendation regarding the health- related content to an individual of the plurality of individuals.
a) In analyzing under step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes.
Claim 1,12, 20 recite abstract limitations such as
(identifying genetic attribute patterns of the individuals by determining a largest shared attribute combination via pairwise comparison, partitioning the individuals into a first subset of individuals exhibiting at least a threshold fraction of the largest shared attribute combination and a second subset of individuals not in the first subset;
determining associations between the genetic attribute patterns within the genetic attributes of the individuals and their respective responses corresponding to the questionnaire;
determining, from the associations, correlations between the health-related content and the genetic attribute patterns;
based on the correlations between the health-related content and the genetic attribute patterns, clustering the individuals into groups; and
based on the correlations and the groups, making a recommendation regarding the health- related content to an individual of the plurality of individuals) are directed to judicial exception of mental processes. One can mentally select an application and as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of identifying, determining, determining, partitioning, determining, clustering and making. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
b) In analyzing under step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because
additional elements of program instructions, one or more processor, computing system (in claims 12, 20) and memory (in claim 20) that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component for obtaining that are well understood routine and conventional activities.
The additional limitation of
( obtaining genetic attributes representing a plurality of individuals;
presenting, by way of a computer-mediated interface, a questionnaire to each of the individuals;
receiving, by way of the computer-mediated interface, respective responses corresponding to the questionnaire from each of the individuals; and
storing a shared attribute combination exhibited by all members of the first subset as a genetic attribute pattern) that are insignificant extra solution activities which are well understood routine and conventional activities, see (Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec) and See (MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp) and the additional limitation of (wherein the questionnaire relates to health-related content) that just indicates question related to health content.
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.
c) In analyzing under step 2B, does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements of program instructions, one or more processor, computing system (in claims 12, 20) and memory (in claim 20) that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component for obtaining that are well understood routine and conventional activities.
The additional limitation of (obtaining genetic attributes representing a plurality of individuals; presenting, by way of a computer-mediated interface, a questionnaire to each of the individuals; receiving, by way of the computer-mediated interface, respective responses corresponding to the questionnaire from each of the individuals; and storing a shared attribute combination exhibited by all members of the first subset as a genetic attribute pattern) that are insignificant extra solution activities which are well understood routine and conventional activities, see (Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec) and See (MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp); and the additional limitation of (wherein the questionnaire relates to health-related content) that just indicates question related to health content.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, 13-19, 21-23 include all the limitations of claims 1, 12, 20. Therefore, claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, 13-19, 21-23 recite the same abstract idea of calculating practically being performed in the mind, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
In particularly:
Claims 2, 13 similar recite limitation
(wherein making the recommendation regarding the health-related content to the individual comprises:
identifying a most similar group to the individual;
predicting, via the correlations between the health-related content and genetic attribute patterns of constituents of the most similar group, portions of the health-related content may be suitable for the individual; and
using the prediction as a basis to recommend a subset of the health-related content to the individual) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of making, identifying, predicting and using. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 3, 14 similar recite limitation
( wherein identifying the most similar group to the individual comprises: computing aggregate similarity scores respectively between the individual and the groups;
determining a most similar aggregate similarity score to the individual within the aggregate similarity scores; and
associating the individual with the group that has a closest aggregate similarity score) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of identifying, determining and associating. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 4, 15 similar recite limitation
(wherein clustering the individuals into groups further comprises: computing a quantitative similarity score for each individual within each group; identifying a similarity threshold for each group; and clustering the individuals whose quantitative similarity scores exceed the similarity threshold into subgroups within their respective groups) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of clustering, computing, identifying and clustering. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 6, 16 recite limitation
“determining, from the correlations, aspects of the health-related content relevant to the further individual” as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of determining. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The additional limitation of (accessing genetic attributes of a further individual of the plurality of individuals; providing, to the further individual, the aspects of the health-related content relevant to the further individual) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp; and Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs).
Claims 7, 17 recite limitation
(based on the further associations between the genetic attributes of the individuals and their respective behavioral attributes, clustering the individuals into further groups; and determining, from the further associations and the further groups, further correlations between the respective behavioral attributes and genetic attribute patterns, wherein making the recommendation is also based on the further correlations) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of clustering and determining. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The additional limitation of (receiving behavioral attributes of the plurality of individuals; storing, in a further database structure, further associations between the genetic attributes of the individuals and their respective behavioral attributes) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp; and Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs).
Claims 8, 18, recite limitation
(based on the further associations between the genetic attributes of the individuals and their respective physical attributes, clustering the individuals into further groups; and determining, from the further associations and the further groups, further correlations between the respective physical attributes and genetic attribute patterns, wherein making the recommendation is also based on the further correlations) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of clustering, determining and making. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The additional limitation of (receiving physical attributes of the plurality of individuals; storing, in a further database structure, further associations between the genetic attributes of the individuals and their respective physical attributes) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp; and Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs).
Claims 10, 19, recite limitations
The additional limitation of (receiving situational attributes of the plurality of individuals; storing, in a further database structure, further associations between the situational attributes of the individuals and their respective responses corresponding to the questionnaire) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp; and Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs).
The limitation (based on the further associations between the genetic attributes of the individuals and their respective situational attributes, clustering the individuals into further groups; and determining, from the further associations and the further groups, further correlations between the respective situational attributes and the respective responses corresponding to the questionnaire, wherein making the recommendation is also based on the further correlations) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of clustering, determining and making. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 21-23 recite abstract idea of (determining a second largest shared attribute combination within the second subset of individuals via pairwise comparison, partitioning the second subset of individuals into a third subset of individuals exhibiting at least a threshold fraction of the second largest shared attribute combination and a fourth subset of individuals not in the third subset) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of determining, and partitioning. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The additional imitation of (storing a shared attribute combination exhibited by all members of the third subset as a second genetic attribute pattern) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp; and Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs).
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; and these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cox et al (US 20170235886)
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAM-Y T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4042. The examiner can normally be reached (571) 272 4042.
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, SHERIEF BADAWI can be reached on (571) 272-9782. 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.
/CAM Y T TRUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169