DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of lung cancer in claim 18, Table 27b1 and the EGFR gene in claims 3-5, and the alteration single nucleotide poly morphism in claims 6-8 in the reply filed on 11/20/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 3, 5, 7 and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/20/2025.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6 and 9-20 are examined on the merit.
Claims 3, 5, 7 and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or liking claim.
Priority
This patent application is a continuation of United States Patent Application No. 18/298,371, filed April 11, 2023, which is a continuation of United States Patent Application No. 16/771,451, which claims the benefit of priority of United States Provisional patent application No. 62/902,950, filed 09/19/2019 and is a U.S. national stage patent application, filed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 371, of International patent application No. PCT/US2019/056713, filed on October 17, 2019, which claims the benefit of priority of United States Provisional patent application No. 62/746,997, filed October 17, 2018.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6 and 9-20 are not given benefit to the claim for priority to provisional application Nos 62/746,997 and 62/902,950 because support is not provided for A) obtaining, from an electronic data store, first genomic sequencing data from cell free DNA drawn from a blood sample of the human subject, wherein the first genomic sequencing data comprises a plurality of epigenetic patterns of cell free DNA within the blood sample; B) obtaining, from an electronic data store, second genomic sequencing data from cell free DNA drawn from the blood sample, wherein the second genomic sequencing data comprises sequence data of cell free DNA within the blood sample.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/11/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the list of cited references was considered in full by the examiner. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this Office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed 05/16/2025 are accepted.
Specification
The specification filed 05/16/2025 is objected to.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 19 recites the term “microservices”. This term is interpreted to mean a software program that processes data (Specification, [0178] “micro-services are completely automated software programs”).
Claim 19 further recites “lake database”. This term is interpreted as database used to store several different data types (specification [0161]).
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 1-2, 4, 6 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Supreme Court has established a two-step framework for this analysis, wherein a claim does not satisfy § 101 if (1) it is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea, and (2), if so, the particular elements of the claim, considered “both individually and as an ordered combination,” do not add enough to “transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355). Applicant is also directed to MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The instantly claimed invention (claim(s) 1-19 being representative) is directed to a method, and (claim(s) 20 being representative) is directed to a system. Therefore, the instantly claimed invention falls into one of the four statutory categories. [Step 1: YES]
Step 2A: First it is determined in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then it is determined in in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Under the MPEP § 2106.04, the Step 2A (Prong 1) analysis requires determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6 and 9-20 recite the following steps which fall under the mathematical concepts, mental processes, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas:
Claims 1 and 20 recite C) mapping the first genomic sequencing data to corresponding locations in a reference human genome; D) mapping the second genomic sequencing data to corresponding locations in the reference human genome; the limitation mapping to a reference genome falls into mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas, since mapping is performed using a mathematical algorithm (see specification [0293] “FASTQ files were aligned against the human reference genome using BWA”).
Claims 1 and 20 further recite determining an absence or presence of at least a first genomic alteration, from among a plurality of predefined genomic alterations, in the blood sample based on at least (i) the second genomic sequencing data, and (ii) the locations in the reference human genome to which the second genomic sequencing data has been mapped; the limitation determining absence or presence of alteration based on first and second data can be practically performed in human mind (mental process), for example by using a pen and paper, since human mind is capable of interpreting data based on known information.
Claims 1 and 20 further recite assessment of the cancer treatment efficacy for the human subject responsive to at least the plurality of epigenetic patterns of cell free DNA within the blood sample and the absence or presence of at least the first genomic alteration in the blood sample; the limitation assessment of the cancer treatment efficacy can be practically performed in human mind (mental process), for example by using a pen and paper, since human are capable of assessing data.
Claim 9 recites verifying that each genomic alteration in the plurality of predefined genomic alterations is a somatic genomic alteration (mental process of data verification).
Claim 10 recites determining whether the respective genomic alteration is germline or somatic (mental process of determining based on the result of an analysis).
Claim 11 recites storing the structured data report in a subject data store (mental process of storing structured data, for example, a table, using a pen and paper).
Claim 12 recites retrieving health data associated with the human subject, and augmenting the structured data report with the health data (mental processes regaining and appending data).
Claims 13 and 14 recite including the cancer type in the data report (mental process of adding data to a report, for example, by using a pen and paper).
Claim 15 recites augmenting the data report comprises including the diagnosis, date of recurrence, the treatment incurred by the human subject, or an outcome of treatment in the data report (mental process of appending data).
Claim 19 recites publishing the locations in the reference human genome to which the second genomic sequencing data have been mapped to a lake database (mental process of writing a location).
Claim 19 further recites adding a first data alert or first event to a data alerts list (mental process of adding data to a list).
Claim 19 further recites determining upon the adding of the first data alert or first event to a data alerts list, wherein the E) determining obtains the locations in the reference human genome to which the second genomic sequencing data have been mapped from the lake database (mental process of determining a location based on known data).
Claims 2, 4, 6, and 16-18 provide further information about the recites judicial exceptions.
Additionally, claims 1-2, 4, 6 and 9-20 recite a correlation between cell-free DNA and presence or absence of alterations, and as such, falls into judicial exception of Laws of nature and natural phenomena. See MPEP 2106(b) I.
The identified claims recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or fall into one of the groups of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity for the reasons set forth above. See MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2) III and MPEP 2106.04 (b) I. Therefore, claims are directed to one or more judicial exception(s) and require further analysis in Prong Two. [Step 2A, Prong 1: YES]
Step 2A: Prong 2: Under the MPEP § 2106.04, the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis requires identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons.
The additional elements of claims 1-2, 4, 6 and 9-20 include the following.
Claims 1and 20 recite a computer system comprising one or more processors, and a memory, storing instructions, obtaining first and second sequencing data, and communicating through a network connection.
Claim 20 further recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions.
Claim 2 recites interfacing with a cloud service platform.
Claim 19 recites a first and second microservice.
The additional elements of a system comprising one or more processor, a memory, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, one or more program, a first and second microservice (software/program) are generic computer components and/or processes. There are no limitations that indicate that the processor, input module, processing module, or output module in the computer-implemented system require anything other than generic computing systems. The courts have found the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the additional element of interfacing with a cloud service platform amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which the courts have identified as limitations that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04 (d) I.
Furthermore, the additional element of obtaining first and second sequencing data amount to nothing more than gathering the data necessary to perform the abstract idea, and as such, considered insignificant extra-solution activity. The courts have identified limitations that merely gather data as insignificant extra-solution activities that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additionally recited elements amount to generic computer components and/or insignificant extra-solution activity and, as such, the claims as a whole do no integrate the abstract idea into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, claims 1-2, 4, 6 and 9-20 are directed to an abstract idea. [Step 2A, Prong 2: NO]
Step 2B: In the second step it is determined whether the claimed subject matter includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. An inventive concept cannot be furnished by an abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The claims do not include any additional steps appended to the judicial exception that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements of claims 1-2, 4, 6 and 9-20 include the following.
Claims 1and 20 recite a computer system comprising one or more processors, and a memory, storing instructions, obtaining first and second sequencing data, and communicating through a network connection.
Claim 20 further recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions.
Claim 2 recites interfacing with a cloud service platform.
Claim 19 recites a first and second microservice.
The additional elements of a system comprising one or more processor, a memory, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, one or more program, a first and second microservice (software/program) are conventional computer components and/or processes. The courts have found the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TU Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607,613,118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Furthermore, the additional element of interfacing with a cloud service platform amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which the courts have identified as limitations that do not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05 I. A.
Furthermore, the additional element of obtaining first and second sequencing data amount to nothing more than gathering the data necessary to perform the abstract idea, and as such, considered insignificant extra-solution activity. The courts have identified limitations that merely gather data as insignificant extra-solution activities that do not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, these additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. [Step 2B: NO]
Therefore, the instantly rejected claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Eltoukhy et al. (US 11756655).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Eltoukhy discloses systems and methods for generating a therapeutic response predict or detecting a disease, by: using a genetic analyzer to generate genetic information; receiving into computer memory a dataset comprising, for each of a plurality of individuals having a disease, (1) genetic information from the individual generated at first time point and (2) treatment response of the individual to one or more therapeutic interventions determined at a second, later, time point; and implementing a machine learning algorithm using the dataset to generate at least one computer implemented classification algorithm, wherein the classification algorithm, based on genetic information from a subject, predicts therapeutic response of the subject to a therapeutic intervention (abstract).
Eltoukhy further discloses that the data is sent by the DNA sequencers over a direct connection or over the internet to a computer for processing and that the data processing aspects of the system can be implemented in digital electronic circuitry, or in computer hardware, firmware, software, or in combinations of them. Eltoukhy further discloses that the data processing apparatus of the invention can be implemented in a computer program product tangibly embodied in a machine-readable storage device for execution by a programmable processor. Eltoukhy further discloses one or more computer programs that are executable on a programmable system including at least one programmable processor coupled to receive data and instructions from and to transmit data and instructions to a data storage system (col. 28, L.1-35); reading on limitations of a computer system for evaluating a cancer treatment efficacy for a human subject that is undergoing, or has completed, a cancer treatment for a cancer, the computer system comprising one or more processors, and a memory, wherein the memory stores instructions for performing a method using the one or more processors (in claim 1), and non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions that, when executed by an electronic device with one or more processors and a memory, cause the electronic device to perform a method for evaluating a cancer treatment efficacy for a human subject that is undergoing, or has completed, a cancer treatment for a cancer (in claim 20).
Eltoukhy further discloses an exemplary process to generate genetic reports, including a tumor response map and associated summary of alterations: The process first captures genetic information by collecting body fluid samples as sources of genetic material (e.g., blood) (for example, second genomic sequencing data) and then the process sequences the materials (polynucleotides in a sample can be sequenced, producing a plurality of sequence reads) and then the tumor burden is estimated (implicit: Tumor burden is estimated after mapping raw sequencing data to the human reference genome) (col. 11, L. 45-67). Eltoukhy further discloses that the genetic information comprises sequence or abundance data from one or more genetic loci in cell-free DNA from the individuals (col. 12, L. 9-11). Eltoukhy further discloses processing genetic information (for example, second genomic sequencing data), identifying genetic variants including copy number variants, single nucleotide polymorphism, abnormal changes in nucleic acid chemical modifications, abnormal changes in epigenetic patterns and abnormal changes in nucleic acid methylation (for example, first genomic sequencing data) (col. 12, L. 14-25). Eltoukhy further discloses that cell free polynucleotides taken from a subject can include polynucleotides derived from normal cells (for example, second genomic sequencing data), as well as polynucleotides derived from diseased cells (for example, first genomic sequencing data), such as cancer cells. Polynucleotides from cancer cells may bear genetic variants (col. 12, L. 60-65); reading on limitations of A) obtaining, from an electronic data store, first genomic sequencing data from cell free DNA drawn from a blood sample of the human subject, wherein the first genomic sequencing data comprises a plurality of epigenetic patterns of cell free DNA within the blood sample; B) obtaining, from an electronic data store, second genomic sequencing data from cell free DNA drawn from the blood sample, wherein the second genomic sequencing data comprises sequence data of cell free DNA within the blood sample.
Eltoukhy further discloses a data storage system (for example, an electronic data store) (col. 28, L. 15-20). Eltoukhy further discloses that clinical information is stored in a database array, for example, the system can store patient information from physicians and test labs in this database and that genome sequence is also captured and histology reports for each patient (col. 8, L. 10-20).
Eltoukhy further discloses mapping sequence reads derived from the sequencing onto a reference sequence; identifying a subset of mapped sequence reads that align with a variant of the reference sequence at each mappable base position; for each mappable base position, calculating a ratio of (a) a number of mapped sequence reads that include a variant as compared to the reference sequence, to (b) a number of total sequence reads for each mappable base position (col. 3, L. 53-67); reading on limitations of C) mapping the first genomic sequencing data to corresponding locations in a reference human genome; D) mapping the second genomic sequencing data to corresponding locations in the reference human genome.
Eltoukhy further discloses determining specific gene alterations (col. 17, L. 55-60; FIG. 2A). Eltoukhy further discloses detecting abnormal cellular activities by sequencing of cell-free nucleic acid with a genetic analyzer, e.g., a DNA sequencer; and detecting the presence or absence of genetic alteration and/or amount of genetic variation in an individual based on the diagnostic confidence indication of the sequence read (col. 2, L. 14-25). Eltoukhy further discloses that the genomic fragment reads that meet a specified quality score thresholds are mapped to a reference genome, or a reference sequence that is known not to contain mutations. After mapping alignment, sequence reads are assigned a mapping score. A mapping score may be a representation or reads mapped back to the reference sequence indicating whether each position is or is not uniquely mappable (col. 22, L. 39-48-53); reading on limitations of E) determining an absence or presence of at least a first genomic alteration, from among a plurality of predefined genomic alterations, in the blood sample based on at least (i) the second genomic sequencing data, and (ii) the locations in the reference human genome to which the second genomic sequencing data has been mapped.
Eltoukhy further discloses generating a genetic report/diagnosis col. 13, L. 10) and predicting therapeutic response of the subject to a therapeutic intervention (abstract, FIG 2B). Eltoukhy further discloses determining the efficacy of a particular treatment option. In one example, successful treatment options may actually increase the amount of copy number variation or mutations detected in subject's blood if the treatment is successful as more cancers may die and shed DNA (col. 14, L. 50-55); reading on limitations of F) securely communicating, through a network connection, a structured data report that provides an assessment of the cancer treatment efficacy for the human subject responsive to at least the plurality of epigenetic patterns of cell free DNA within the blood sample and the absence or presence of at least the first genomic alteration in the blood sample.
Regarding claim 4, Eltoukhy discloses that the plurality of predefined genomic alterations consists of mutations in the EGFR gene (FIG. 2D. 2E, 2F, 2G, 2H, 2I).
Regarding claim 6, Eltoukhy discloses that the first genomic alteration is a single nucleotide polymorphism in a gene (col. 9, L. 40-45). See also identification of single nucleotide polymorphisms (col. 12, L. 14-25).
Regarding claim 9, Eltoukhy discloses measure of each of a plurality of somatic mutants among the polynucleotides in each sample (col. 6, L. 27-35); reading on limitations of verifying that each genomic alteration in the plurality of predefined genomic alterations is a somatic genomic alteration.
Regarding claim 10, Eltoukhy discloses that using the systems and methods described useful in monitoring residual disease or recurrence of disease (col. 14, L. 60-63). Eltoukhy further discloses using a feature-based classifier trained on validated somatic mutation samples while benefiting from other available information such as base quality, mapping quality, strand bias and tail distance. Given paired normal/tumor bam files, the embodiment will output the 60 probability of each candidate site being somatic. Through the systems and methods described herein, the present disclosure provides a way to classify treatment responses to therapeutic interventions, and subsequently determine whether a given individual falls into a particular classification (e.g., responsive to treatment, nonresponsive to treatment, or a particular level of responsiveness such as fully responsive or partially responsive) (col. 8, L. 55-67); reading on limitations of the assessment of the cancer treatment is in the form of a molecular residual disease status or a cancer recurrence status for the human subject, and wherein the method further comprises determining, for each respective genomic alteration determined to be present in the determining E), whether the respective genomic alteration is germline or somatic, and wherein when the respective genomic alteration is determined to be germline, suppressing use of the respective genomic alteration in providing the molecular residual disease (MRD) status or the cancer recurrence status for the human subject.
Regarding claim 11, Eltoukhy discloses that clinical information is stored in a database array. For example, the system can store patient information from physicians and test labs in this database. Text data 220 such as genome sequence is also captured and histology reports for each patient. For example, data can come from cBio Cancer Genomics Portal (FIG. 1B, 210); reading on limitations of the structured data report in a subject data store.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eltoukhy et al. (US 11756655) in view of Andry et al. (PAPAyA: A Highly Scalable Cloud-based Framework for Genomic Processing, In Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies (BIOSTEC 2016) - Volume 3: BIOINFORMATICS, pages 198-206).
Claims 2 and 12 depend on claim 1. Limitations of claim 1 have been taught in the above rejection.
Regarding claim 2, Eltoukhy discloses that reports are submitted and accessed electronically via the internet (col. 15, L. 60-61). Eltoukhy further discloses that sequencing may be performed using any nucleic acid sequencing platforms known in the art (col. 22, L. 30-31) and that the data is sent by the DNA sequencers over a direct connection or over the internet to a computer for processing. Eltoukhy further discloses that the data processing aspects of the invention can be implemented advantageously in one or more computer programs that are executable on a programmable system including at least one programmable processor coupled to receive data and instructions from and to transmit data and instructions to a data storage system (col. 28, L. 1-60).
Further regarding claim 2, Eltoukhy does not expressly disclose interfacing with a cloud service platform to perform at least one of the A) to F) steps.
Andry discloses PAPAyA platform to ingest, store and process in silico large genomics datasets using analysis algorithms based on pre-defined knowledge databases with the goal to offer personalized therapy guidance to physicians in particular for cancers and infectious diseases. Andry further discloses that the framework is deployed on a cloud-based digital health platform that provides generic provisioning and hosting services, identity and access management, workflow orchestration, device cloud capabilities, notifications, scheduling, logging, auditing, metering as well as specific patient demographic, clinical and wellness data services that can be combined with the genomics analytics result (abstract, FIG. 1, FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Eltoukhy discloses that the report generator system can be a central data processing system configured to establish communications directly with: a remote data site or lab, a medical practice/healthcare provider (treating professional) and/or a patient/subject through communication links. Eltoukhy further discloses that the lab can be medical laboratory, diagnostic laboratory, medical facility, medical practice, point-of-care testing device, or any other remote data site capable of generating subject clinical information. Subject clinical information includes but it is not limited to laboratory test data, X-ray data, examination and diagnosis. Eltoukhy further discloses that the clinical information 210 is stored in a database array and extracted by extractor 240 (for example, data augmentation) (col. 8, L. 10-12). Eltoukhy further discloses that the process generates genetic Report/Diagnosis. First, the process retrieves Prior Treatment from the Population with Similar Genetic Profile (78). The process includes generating genetic graph for a plurality of measurements showing mutation trend (79) and generating report showing treatment results and options (col. 13, L. 10-15). Additionally, Andry discloses that Demographic and clinical data from EMRs and other various clinical systems, including pathology and radiology data from the patient (in HSDP done via a VHR and an associated EMPI), is imported, reconciled and associated with biological sequencing data (pg. 201, col. 1, subsection 3.1.2); reading on limitation of retrieving health data associated with the human subject, and augmenting the structured data report with the health data.
Regarding claim 13, Eltoukhy discloses that the systems and methods described herein may also be used to help characterize certain cancers. Genetic data produced from the system and methods of this disclosure may allow practitioners to help better characterize a specific form of cancer. Often times, cancers are heterogeneous in both composition and staging. Genetic profile data may allow characterization of specific sub-types of cancer that may be important in the diagnosis or treatment of that specific sub-type. This information may also provide a subject or practitioner clues regarding the prognosis of a specific type of cancer (col. 14, L. 27-38). Eltoukhy further discloses classifying the test sample into one or more classes of cancers (col. 9, L. 12-27). Additionally, Andry discloses cancer scenarios and subtyping in Table 1. reading on limitations of including the cancer type in the data report.
Regarding claim 14, Eltoukhy discloses specimen’s details in the report (see FIG. 2C, 2D). Additionally, Andry discloses the data augmentation of various data and extracting and repurposing data from multiple different EMR systems (pg. 201, col. 1, subsection 3.1.2); reading on limitations of the health data comprises details of a specimen collected from the human subject, and the augmenting the data report with the health data comprises including details of the specimen in the data report.
Regarding claim 15, Eltoukhy discloses that lab 22 can be medical laboratory, diagnostic laboratory, medical facility, medical practice, point-of-care testing device, or any other remote data site capable of generating subject clinical information. Subject clinical information includes but it is not limited to laboratory test data, X-ray data, examination and diagnosis, the results of laboratory tests, imaging or medical procedure directed towards the specific cancer that one of ordinary skill in the art can readily identify. The list of appropriate sources of clinical information for cancer includes but it is not limited to: a computed tomography (CT) scan, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, ultrasound scan, bone scan, a positron emission tomography (PET Scan), bone marrow test, barium X-ray, endoscopy, lymphangiogram, IVU (Intravenous urogram) or IVP (IV pyelogram), lumbar puncture, cystoscopy, immunological tests (anti-malignin antibody screen), and cancer marker tests (col. 11, L. 13-24). Eltoukhy further discloses reporting on cancer test results and treatment options (col. 10, L. 60-63). Eltoukhy further discloses classifying treatment responses to therapeutic interventions, and subsequently determine whether a given individual falls into a particular classification (e.g., responsive to treatment, nonresponsive to treatment, or a particular level of responsiveness such as fully 65 responsive or partially responsive) (col. 8, L. 60-67); reading on limitations of the health data comprises a diagnosis, a recurrence, a medication, a surgery, a response to treatment incurred by the human subject, an adverse effect to treatment incurred by the human subject, or an organoid modeling result, and the augmenting the data report comprises including the diagnosis, date of recurrence, the treatment incurred by the human subject, or an outcome of treatment in the data report.
Regarding claim 16, Eltoukhy discloses that a central data processing system is configured to establish communications directly with: a remote data site or lab 22, a medical practice/healthcare provider (treating professional) 24 and/or a patient/subject 26 through communication links. The lab 22 can be medical laboratory, diagnostic laboratory, medical facility, medical practice, point-of-care testing device, or any other remote data site capable of generating subject clinical information (col. 10-11, L. 63-97, 1-3, respectively). Additionally, Andry discloses extracting and repurposing data from multiple different EMR systems (pg. 201, col. 1, subsection 3.1.2); reading on limitation of the health data is retrieved from an electronic medical record or an electronic health record associated with the human subject.
Regarding claim 17, Eltoukhy discloses that health data provide indication of status of lung cancer (col. 13, L. 38-60; FIG. 2E, 2H); reading on limitaions of the health data provides an indication of a status of a colorectal, ovarian, lung, or breast cancer for the human subject. Additionally, Andry discloses that examples of use cases include breast, prostate and lung cancer scenarios (pg. 199, col. 2, subsection 2; see also scenarios of Table 1).
Regarding claim 18, Eltoukhy discloses that in a cancer treatment embodiment, the subject may be afflicted with cancer, among others (col. 11, L. 11-12). Eltoukhy further discloses that the term "cancer" includes reast, prostate, lung and colon cancer (col. 13, L. 48-67); reading on limitations of the human subject is afflicted with colorectal, ovarian, lung, or breast cancer. Additionally, Andry discloses that examples of use cases include breast, prostate and lung cancer scenarios (pg. 199, col. 2, subsection 2; see also scenarios of Table 1).
Regarding claim 19, Eltoukhy discloses mapping sequence reads derived from the sequencing onto a reference sequence; identifying a subset of mapped sequence reads that align with a variant of the reference sequence at each mappable base position; for each mappable base position, calculating a ratio of (a) a number of mapped sequence reads that include a variant as compared to the reference sequence, to (b) a number of total sequence reads for each mappable base position; and comparing current sequence reads with prior sequence reads from at least on other time point and updating a diagnostic confidence indication accordingly (col. 2, L. 59-67). Eltoukhy further discloses detecting the presence or absence of genetic alteration and/or amount of genetic variation in an individual based on the diagnostic confidence indication of the sequence read (col. 2, L. 19-23). Eltoukhy further discloses the data processing aspects of the system can be implemented in digital electronic circuitry, or in computer hardware, firmware, software, or in combinations of them (col. 28, L. 1-13). Andry discloses that pipelines used in PAPAyA are defined as a sequence of standard jobs (i.e., series of steps embodying bioinformatics tools and commands) used to transform data (e.g. sequencing data in FASTQ format) from a raw state to a processed state in which various analyses can be performed on variant calling data in VCF format … Modules used in PAPAyA take this 'usable' data and apply custom algorithms as well as various knowledge-base-driven annotations to provide the user with what is the crux of our platform: providing clinically actionable information based on a person's genome or biome … The modules are implemented using univariate or multivariate statistical methods as well as various machine learning and computational biology algorithms. For example, cancer subtyping can be a specific module that leverages unsupervised learning capabilities of the analytics platform … modules include genomics-oriented analytics, as well as NLP-related analytics (pg. 201). Andry further discloses scheduling and running jobs as part of predefined workflows asynchronously, passing parameters and results that are output between jobs, checking the status and progress of jobs, canceling and retrying specific jobs (for example, one or more alerts). Andry further discloses dependable mechanisms for automatic, secure, quality assured acquisition of demographic, clinical and genomic data from healthcare organizations. Provide a reliable way to schedule and execute various pipelines such as those for detecting variants, mutations, copy number variation (CNV), differential gene expression and differential DNA methylation (pg. 199, col. 2, last two paragraphs). Andry further discloses that the framework provides workflow orchestration, device cloud capabilities, notifications, scheduling, logging, auditing, metering as well as specific patient demographic, clinical and wellness data services that can be combined with the genomics analytics results (abstract); reading on limitations of wherein the D) mapping is performed by a first microservice and the E) determining is performed by a second microservice, and wherein the method further comprises comprising: publishing, upon completion of the D) mapping, the locations in the reference human genome to which the second genomic sequencing data have been mapped to a lake database, adding a first data alert or first event to a data alerts list, and initiating the second microservice to perform the E) determining upon the adding of the first data alert or first event to a data alerts list, wherein the E) determining obtains the locations in the reference human genome to which the second genomic sequencing data have been mapped from the lake database.
In KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex, the Supreme Court, in rejecting the rigid application of the teaching, suggestion, and motivation test by the Federal Circuit, indicated that “The principles underlying [earlier] cases are instructive when the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious. When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” KSR Int'l v. Teleflex lnc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007).
Applying the KSR standard to Eltoukhy and Andry, the examiner concludes that the combination of Eltoukhy and Andry represents the use of known techniques to improve similar methods. Both Eltoukhy and Andry are directed to analyzing large genomics datasets using analysis algorithms based on pre-defined knowledge databases with the goal to offer guidance to for cancers. Eltoukhy only disclosed data processing aspects of the invention can be implemented advantageously in one or more computer programs that are executable on a programmable system including at least one programmable processor coupled to receive data and instructions from and to transmit data and instructions to a data storage system and submitting and accessing the reports electronically via internet for generating a therapeutic response. In the same field of research, Andry disclosed a cloud-based platform that employs microservices that provides generic provisioning and hosting services, identity and access management, workflow orchestration, device cloud capabilities, notifications, scheduling, logging, auditing, metering as well as specific patient demographic, clinical and wellness data services that can be combined with the genomics analytics results of Eltoukhy. It would have been obvious to use the genomic analysis of Eltoukhy as one of the microservices of Andy and the results would have been predictable. One ordinary skilled in the art before he effective filing data of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success at combining the method of Eltoukhy and Andry. This combination would have been expected to have provided a more comprehensive assessment of cancer treatment efficacy. Therefore, the invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHAZAL SABOUR whose telephone number is (703)756-1289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Larry D. Riggs can be reached at (571) 270-3062. 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.
/G.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/LARRY D RIGGS II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1686