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
This action is responsive to communications regarding the applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 07/02/2026.
Claims 40 and 45-47 have been canceled.
Claims 49-52 have been added.
Claims 29-39, 41-44 and 48-52 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant’s main argument is that claims 29-39, 41-44 and 48-52 direct toward statutory subject matter (Argument 1, Remark, pages 11-12), combination of Kenedy and Adams does not teach the amended claimed features, i.e. “Without conceding the merits of the rejection, and in the interest of efficiently advancing prosecution the claims are amended. For example, claim 29 is amended to recite "determining, by the computing system, that at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset from the first source and the second dataset from the second source satisfies a threshold criteria" and "responsive to determining that the at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfies the threshold criteria, generating, by the computing system, a collaboration proposal associated with the first dataset and the second dataset.”… Adams cannot teach determining "that at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset from the first source and the second dataset from the second source satisfies a threshold criteria." Moreover, Adams also cannot teach or suggest "responsive to determining that the at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfies the threshold criteria, generating, by the computing system, a collaboration proposal associated with the first dataset and the second dataset."” (Argument 2, Remark, pages 12-13).
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments. It is noted that
In response to Applicant’s argument 1, it is noted that Regarding independent system claim 41 (similarly method claim 36 and 41), the limitation of “receiving, by a computing system, a first dataset from a first source, the first dataset being associated with a first researcher or a first research entity; receiving, by the computing systema second dataset from a second source; determining, by the computing system, one or more correlations between the first dataset from the first source and the second dataset from the second source; , by the computing system, that at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfies a threshold criteria, the second dataset having been received from a second source; responsive to determining that the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfy the threshold criteria, generating, by the computing system, a collaboration proposal associated with the first dataset and the second dataset; and providing, by the computing system, an interface for to a user device to cause the user device to present mind/manual process but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind/manually performance. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mental/manually perform the process.
Response to Applicant’s Argument 2, it is noted that Kenedy teaches receiving, by a computing system, a first dataset from a first source, the first dataset being associated with a first researcher or a first research entity (Figures 14-18, paragraphs 0016-0020, 0169-0171, receiving and generating plurality of datasets for plurality of individuals); receiving, by the computing system, a second dataset from a second source datasets (par. 0095, 0097, plurality of additional datasets from external databases, wherein the additional datasets are interpreted as second dataset); determining, by the computing system, one or more correlations between the first dataset from the first source and the second dataset from the second source (paragraphs 0100-0102, 0109, 0164, 0206, correlate datasets based on attributes and based on thresholds for overall degrees of similarity at the pangenetic and/or non-pangenetic levels); determining, by the computing system, that at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset from the first source and the second dataset from the second source satisfies a threshold criteria (par. 0105-0108, 0123); Kenedy does not explicitly teach responsive to determining that the at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfies the threshold criteria, generating, by the computing system, a collaboration proposal associated with the first dataset and the second dataset; and providing, by the computing system, an interface to a user device to cause the user device to present the collaboration proposal as claimed. Adams teaches responsive to determining that the at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfies the threshold criteria, generating, by the computing system, a collaboration proposal associated with the first dataset and the second dataset; and providing, by the computing system, an interface to a user device to cause the user device to present the collaboration proposal (par. 0096-0099, generating a collaboration proposal based on correlation threshold, i.e. “[0096] According to one embodiment of the present invention, if a determination is made that two sets of query-related objects are similar, a notification may be displayed or delivered to the researchers or research groups…[0099] According to another embodiment of the invention, after a determination has been made that one set of research information is similar to another set of research information, other actions may be taken or other information may be provided in addition to displaying a notification of the similarity. For instance, the notification may contain an option which allows the researchers involved to place a phone call to each other or send each other a message such as an email message, a text message, a voicemail message, or any other message known to those skilled in the art. As an alternative, the notification may merely contain contact information for the other researcher. The researchers may be provided with the option of contacting each other so the researchers may determine if they could benefit from sharing research data, sharing research equipment, or discussing research problems and ideas. Thus, allowing the researchers to contact each other may allow both researchers to benefit from each other's experience.”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kenedy with the teaching of Adams because they are in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do so because the teaching of Adams would allow Kenedy to “identifying related database search efforts and a mechanism for notifying independent searchers of the similarity of their respective searches” (Adams, par. 0009-0012.)
For the above reasons, Examiner believed that rejection of the last Office action was proper and within their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See MPEP 2111 [R-1] Interpretation of Claims-Broadest Reasonable Interpretation.
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 29-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) The claim(s) 29-39, 41-44 and 48-52 recites a method and system, and are directed toward statutory subject matter.
(Step 2A1-does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?)
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Regarding independent system claim 41 (similarly method claim 36 and 41), the limitation of “receiving, by a computing system, a first dataset from a first source, the first dataset being associated with a first researcher or a first research entity; receiving, by the computing systema second dataset from a second source; determining, by the computing system, one or more correlations between the first dataset from the first source and the second dataset from the second source; , by the computing system, that at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfies a threshold criteria, the second dataset having been received from a second source; responsive to determining that the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfy the threshold criteria, generating, by the computing system, a collaboration proposal associated with the first dataset and the second dataset; and providing, by the computing system, an interface for to a user device to cause the user device to present
The claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 763, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and
Further, if a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. In this case, for system claim 41, except for using generic elements such as processor, memory, all other element can be performed by human mind as a mental process and/or performed manually using pencil and paper (The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., a mathematical calculation) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another. For instance, in CyberSource, the court determined that the step of "constructing a map of credit card numbers" was a limitation that was able to be performed "by writing down a list of credit card transactions made from a particular IP address." In making this determination, the court looked to the specification, which explained that the claimed map was nothing more than a listing of several (e.g., four) credit card transactions. The court concluded that this step was able to be performed mentally with a pen and paper, and therefore, it qualified as a mental process. 654 F.3d at 1372-73, 99 USPQ2d at 1695. See also Flook, 437 U.S. at 586, 198 USPQ at 196 (claimed "computations can be made by pencil and paper calculations"); University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. v. General Electric Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367, 129 USPQ2d 1409, 1411-12 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (relying on specification’s description of the claimed analysis and manipulation of data as being performed mentally "‘using pen and paper methodologies, such as flowsheets and patient charts’"); Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360 (although claimed as computer-implemented, steps of screening messages can be "performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper").) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).)
Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or manually performed, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Step 2A2-Practical Application?)This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform “…receiving…identifying…generating a collaboration proposal…”. The processor in performing the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of the steps) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element 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- does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?)
Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
“As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that “[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula”. 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was “post-solution activity”). “
As to dependent claims 30-35, 37-39, 42-44 and 48-52 , the claim further recites steps of identifying data, comparing data, and selecting data based on comparison. The additional limitation further detailing with data observation and processing, and add insignificant extra-solution activity. Refining the abstract idea and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity does not make an abstract idea beyond the abstract idea itself. The claim recites mental process and/or manual process including limitations where steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, the claim does not mount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 29, 36 and 41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12340427, claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11935142. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed features of the claims 1, 16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12340427, claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11935142, can also be interpreted as claimed features as claimed in the claims 29, 36 and 41 of the present application.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1, 16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12340427, claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11935142, to arrive at the claims 29, 36 and 41 of the instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Claim comparison: Claimed subject matter is in parallel for the purpose of comparison
Present Application
U.S. Patent No. 12340427
29. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method for identifying collaboration opportunities, the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by a computing system, a first dataset from a first source, the first dataset being associated with a first researcher or a first research entity; receiving, by the computing system, a second dataset from a second source; determining, by the computing system, one or more correlations between the first dataset from the first source and the second dataset from the second source; determining, by the computing system, that at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset from the first source and the second dataset from the second source satisfiesthe at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfies generating, by the computing system, a collaboration proposal associated with the first dataset and the second dataset; and providing, by the computing system, an interface for to a user device to cause the user device to present
36. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method for identifying collaboration opportunities, the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by a computing system, a first dataset from a first source, the first dataset being associated with a first researcher or first research entity; receiving, by the computing systema second dataset from a second source; determining, by the computing system, one or more correlations between the first dataset from the first source and the second dataset from the second source; determining, by the computing system, that at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset from the first source and the second dataset from the second source satisfiesthe at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfies determining, by the computing system, that a funding opportunity is associated with the first dataset and the second dataset; responsive to determining that the funding opportunity is associated with the first dataset and the second dataset, generating, by the computing system, a collaboration proposal associated with the first dataset and the second dataset; and providing, by the computing system, an interface for to a user device to cause the user device to present
41. (Currently Amended) A system comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receivingdataset being associated with a first researcher or a first research entity; receivinga second dataset from a second source; determiningfrom the first source and the second dataset from the second source;at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset from the first source and the second dataset from the second source satisfies the at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfies providing an interface for to a user device to cause the user device to present
1. A computer-implemented method for identifying collaboration opportunities, the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by a computing system, a first dataset from a first source, the first dataset being associated with a first researcher or first research entity; receiving, by the computing system, a plurality of additional datasets; determining, by the computing system, one or more correlations between the first dataset and each of a subset of the plurality of additional datasets; identifying a second dataset from the subset of the plurality of additional datasets by determining that the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfy a threshold criteria, the second dataset having been received from a second source; responsive to determining that the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfy the threshold criteria, identifying one or more actionable tasks; and presenting the identified one or more actionable tasks to the first researcher or first research entity, wherein the one or more actionable tasks comprise a first task to be performed with respect to the first dataset and a second task to be performed with respect to the second dataset.
16. A computer-implemented method for identifying collaboration opportunities, the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by a computing system, a first dataset from a first source, the first dataset being associated with a first researcher or first research entity; receiving, by the computing system, a plurality of additional datasets; determining, by the computing system, one or more correlations between the first dataset and each of a subset of the plurality of additional datasets; identifying a second dataset from the subset of the plurality of additional datasets by determining that the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfy a threshold criteria, the second dataset having been received from a second source; responsive to determining that the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfy the threshold criteria, identifying one or more actionable tasks; and presenting the identified one or more actionable tasks to the first researcher or first research entity, wherein identifying one or more actionable tasks comprises: loading a plurality of biological datasets stored in one or more public, private, or system databases; analyzing the plurality of biological datasets for quality control; normalizing the plurality of biological datasets; removing at least one biological dataset from the plurality of biological datasets based on the at least one biological dataset not meeting a quality control metric; performing statistical analysis on each biological dataset of the plurality of biological datasets to identify one or more sets of differentially expressed or modified molecules; identifying one or more correlations between two or more of the plurality of biological datasets; and identifying the one or more actionable tasks based on the identified one or more correlations between two or more of the plurality of biological datasets.
18. A system for one or more collaboration recommendations, comprising: one or more processors; memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform the operations of: receiving a first dataset from a first source, the first dataset being associated with a first researcher or first research entity; receiving a plurality of additional datasets; determining one or more correlations between the first dataset and each of a subset of the plurality of additional datasets; identifying a second dataset from the subset of the plurality of additional datasets by determining that the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfy a threshold criteria, the second dataset having been received from a second source; responsive to determining that the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfy the threshold criteria, identifying one or more actionable tasks; and presenting the identified one or more actionable tasks to the first researcher or first research entity, wherein the one or more actionable tasks comprise a first task to be performed with respect to the first dataset and a second task to be performed with respect to the second dataset.
Claim comparison: Claimed subject matter is in parallel for the purpose of comparison
Present Application
Patent No. 11935142
29. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method for identifying collaboration opportunities, the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by a computing system, a first dataset from a first source, the first dataset being associated with a first researcher or a first research entity; receiving, by the computing system, a second dataset from a second source; determining, by the computing system, one or more correlations between the first dataset from the first source and the second dataset from the second source; determining, by the computing system, that at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset from the first source and the second dataset from the second source satisfiesthe at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfies generating, by the computing system, a collaboration proposal associated with the first dataset and the second dataset; and providing, by the computing system, an interface for to a user device to cause the user device to present
36. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method for identifying collaboration opportunities, the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by a computing system, a first dataset from a first source, the first dataset being associated with a first researcher or first research entity; receiving, by the computing systema second dataset from a second source; determining, by the computing system, one or more correlations between the first dataset from the first source and the second dataset from the second source; determining, by the computing system, that at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset from the first source and the second dataset from the second source satisfiesthe at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfies determining, by the computing system, that a funding opportunity is associated with the first dataset and the second dataset; responsive to determining that the funding opportunity is associated with the first dataset and the second dataset, generating, by the computing system, a collaboration proposal associated with the first dataset and the second dataset; and providing, by the computing system, an interface for to a user device to cause the user device to present
41. (Currently Amended) A system comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receivinga second dataset from a second source; determiningthe first dataset from the first source and the second dataset from the second source;at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset from the first source and the second dataset from the second source satisfies the at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfies providing an interface for to a user device to cause the user device to present
1. A computer-implemented method for identifying collaboration opportunities, the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by a computing system, a first dataset from a first source, the first dataset being associated with a first researcher or first research entity; receiving, by the computing system, a plurality of additional datasets; determining, by the computing system, one or more correlations between the first dataset and each of a subset of the plurality of additional datasets; identifying a second dataset form the subset of the plurality of additional datasets by determining that the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfy a threshold criteria, the second dataset having been received from a second source; responsive to identifying the second dataset, analyzing information associated with the second dataset to identify one or more second researchers or second research entities associated with the second dataset; receiving, by the computing system, information on a plurality of funding sources; identifying, by the computing system and based on the determined one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset, a first funding source from the information on the plurality of funding sources; and providing, (i) by the computing system, (ii) to the first researcher or first research entity, and (iii) in response to identifying the one or more second researchers or second research entities, a collaboration report, the collaboration report including information comprising: an indicator of the one or more second researchers or second research entities associated with the second dataset; information on how to contact at least one of the one or more second researchers or second research entities; and indicator of the identified first funding source; information on one or more publications associated with the one or more second researchers or second research entities; and information on experimental data based on the second dataset.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying one or more actionable tasks based on the determined one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset; presenting the identified one or more actionable tasks to the first researcher or first research entity.
1. A computer-implemented method for identifying collaboration opportunities, the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by a computing system, a first dataset from a first source, the first dataset being associated with a first researcher or first research entity; receiving, by the computing system, a plurality of additional datasets; determining, by the computing system, one or more correlations between the first dataset and each of a subset of the plurality of additional datasets; identifying a second dataset form the subset of the plurality of additional datasets by determining that the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfy a threshold criteria, the second dataset having been received from a second source; responsive to identifying the second dataset, analyzing information associated with the second dataset to identify one or more second researchers or second research entities associated with the second dataset; receiving, by the computing system, information on a plurality of funding sources; identifying, by the computing system and based on the determined one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset, a first funding source from the information on the plurality of funding sources; and providing, (i) by the computing system, (ii) to the first researcher or first research entity, and (iii) in response to identifying the one or more second researchers or second research entities, a collaboration report, the collaboration report including information comprising: an indicator of the one or more second researchers or second research entities associated with the second dataset; information on how to contact at least one of the one or more second researchers or second research entities; and indicator of the identified first funding source; information on one or more publications associated with the one or more second researchers or second research entities; and information on experimental data based on the second dataset.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying one or more actionable tasks based on the determined one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset; presenting the identified one or more actionable tasks to the first researcher or first research entity.
1. A computer-implemented method for identifying collaboration opportunities, the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by a computing system, a first dataset from a first source, the first dataset being associated with a first researcher or first research entity; receiving, by the computing system, a plurality of additional datasets; determining, by the computing system, one or more correlations between the first dataset and each of a subset of the plurality of additional datasets; identifying a second dataset form the subset of the plurality of additional datasets by determining that the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfy a threshold criteria, the second dataset having been received from a second source; responsive to identifying the second dataset, analyzing information associated with the second dataset to identify one or more second researchers or second research entities associated with the second dataset; receiving, by the computing system, information on a plurality of funding sources; identifying, by the computing system and based on the determined one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset, a first funding source from the information on the plurality of funding sources; and providing, (i) by the computing system, (ii) to the first researcher or first research entity, and (iii) in response to identifying the one or more second researchers or second research entities, a collaboration report, the collaboration report including information comprising: an indicator of the one or more second researchers or second research entities associated with the second dataset; information on how to contact at least one of the one or more second researchers or second research entities; and indicator of the identified first funding source; information on one or more publications associated with the one or more second researchers or second research entities; and information on experimental data based on the second dataset.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying one or more actionable tasks based on the determined one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset; presenting the identified one or more actionable tasks to the first researcher or first research entity.
Claim Objections
Claims 29, 36 and 41 are objected to because of the following informalities: “interface for” should be “interface [[for]]”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 29-39, 41-44 and 48-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “responsive to determining that the at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfies generating, by the computing system, a collaboration proposal associated with the first dataset and the second dataset; and providing, by the computing system, an interface for to a user device to cause the user device to present
Claim 36 recites the limitation “ responsive to determining that the at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfies determining, by the computing system, that a funding opportunity is associated with the first dataset and the second dataset; responsive to determining that the funding opportunity is associated with the first dataset and the second dataset, generating, by the computing system, a collaboration proposal associated with the first dataset and the second dataset; and providing, by the computing system, an interface for to a user device to cause the user device to present
Claim 41 recites the limitation “responsive to determining that the at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfies providing an interface for to a user device to cause the user device to presentcollaboration proposal
Claims 30-35, 37-39, 42-44 and 48-52 inherit the deficiencies of their respective independent claim and are rejected by virtue of their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 29, 41, and 49-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20080228768 to Kenedy et al. (hereinafter “Kenedy”), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20060122965 to Adams et al. (hereinafter “Adams”).
As to claim 29, Kenedy teaches a computer-implemented method for identifying collaboration opportunities, the computer-implemented method comprising (paragraphs 0056, 0115, 0215, 0280, computer implemented method for providing recommend data based on biological datasets correlation in a system comprising processor for executing instructions stored in non-transitory computer readable storage medium):
receiving, by a computing system, a first dataset from a first source, the first dataset being associated with a first researcher or a first research entity (Figures 14-18, paragraphs 0016-0020, 0169-0171, receiving and generating plurality of datasets for plurality of individuals);
receiving, by the computing system, a second dataset from a second source datasets (par. 0095, 0097, plurality of additional datasets from external databases, wherein the additional datasets are interpreted as second dataset);
determining, by the computing system, one or more correlations between the first dataset from the first source and the second dataset from the second source (paragraphs 0100-0102, 0109, 0164, 0206, correlate datasets based on attributes and based on thresholds for overall degrees of similarity at the pangenetic and/or non-pangenetic levels);
determining, by the computing system, that at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset from the first source and the second dataset from the second source satisfies a threshold criteria (par. 0105-0108, 0123);
Kenedy does not explicitly teach responsive to determining that the at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfies the threshold criteria, generating, by the computing system, a collaboration proposal associated with the first dataset and the second dataset; and providing, by the computing system, an interface to a user device to cause the user device to present the collaboration proposal as claimed.
Adams teaches responsive to determining that the at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfies the threshold criteria, generating, by the computing system, a collaboration proposal associated with the first dataset and the second dataset; and providing, by the computing system, an interface to a user device to cause the user device to present the collaboration proposal (par. 0096-0099, generating a collaboration proposal based on correlation threshold, i.e. “[0096] According to one embodiment of the present invention, if a determination is made that two sets of query-related objects are similar, a notification may be displayed or delivered to the researchers or research groups…[0099] According to another embodiment of the invention, after a determination has been made that one set of research information is similar to another set of research information, other actions may be taken or other information may be provided in addition to displaying a notification of the similarity. For instance, the notification may contain an option which allows the researchers involved to place a phone call to each other or send each other a message such as an email message, a text message, a voicemail message, or any other message known to those skilled in the art. As an alternative, the notification may merely contain contact information for the other researcher. The researchers may be provided with the option of contacting each other so the researchers may determine if they could benefit from sharing research data, sharing research equipment, or discussing research problems and ideas. Thus, allowing the researchers to contact each other may allow both researchers to benefit from each other's experience.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kenedy with the teaching of Adams because they are in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do so because the teaching of Adams would allow Kenedy to “identifying related database search efforts and a mechanism for notifying independent searchers of the similarity of their respective searches” (Adams, par. 0009-0012.)
Regarding claim 41, is essentially the same as claim 29, except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
As to claim 49, the rejection of claim 29 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Kenedy and Adams teaches the method of claim 29, wherein at least one of the first dataset from the first source or the second dataset from the second source is a private dataset from a private source, and wherein generating the collaboration proposal comprises concealing one or more details associated with the private dataset (par. 0093, 0278, private data and concealing data by omitting or masking data).
As to claim 50, the rejection of claim 29 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Kenedy and Adams teaches the method of claim 29, wherein at least one of the first dataset from the first source or the second dataset from the second source is received directly by the computing system from an instrument that generates data (par. 0044, 0089, 0097, generate attribute data based on measured attributes).
As to claim 51, the rejection of claim 29 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Kenedy and Adams teaches the method of claim 29, wherein responsive to determining that the at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfies the threshold criteria, identifying an actionable tasks to be performed with respect to the first dataset or the second dataset; and wherein providing the interface further causes the user device to present the actionable task (Adams, par. 0096-0099, generating and presenting an actionable task based on correlation threshold, such as an option which allows the researchers involved to place a phone call to each other or send each other a message such as an email message, a text message, a voicemail message, or any other message known to those skilled in the art i.e. “[0096] According to one embodiment of the present invention, if a determination is made that two sets of query-related objects are similar, a notification may be displayed or delivered to the researchers or research groups…[0099] According to another embodiment of the invention, after a determination has been made that one set of research information is similar to another set of research information, other actions may be taken or other information may be provided in addition to displaying a notification of the similarity. For instance, the notification may contain an option which allows the researchers involved to place a phone call to each other or send each other a message such as an email message, a text message, a voicemail message, or any other message known to those skilled in the art. As an alternative, the notification may merely contain contact information for the other researcher. The researchers may be provided with the option of contacting each other so the researchers may determine if they could benefit from sharing research data, sharing research equipment, or discussing research problems and ideas. Thus, allowing the researchers to contact each other may allow both researchers to benefit from each other's experience.”).
As to claim 52, the rejection of claim 29 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Kenedy and Adams teaches the method of claim 29, wherein the first dataset is in a first format and the second dataset is in a second format that is different from the first format, and the method further comprising: normalizing the first dataset and the second dataset including by modifying at least one of the first format or the second format (par. 0056, 0064, converting and expanding a first dataset by a conversion/formatting engine of the system into a more versatile format and stored in an expanded dataset (i.e., an expanded first dataset). A comparison engine of the system can perform a comparison between attributes from records of the first dataset or expanded first dataset to determine candidate predisposing attributes which are then stored in a separate dataset (i.e., a second dataset)).
Claim(s) 30-34, 36-39, 42-44 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20080228768 to Kenedy et al. (hereinafter “Kenedy”), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20060122965 to Adams et al. (hereinafter “Adams”), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20130124266 to Klose et al. (hereinafter “Klose”).
As to claim 30, the rejection of claim 29 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Kenedy and Adams teaches the method of claim 29. The combination of Kenedy and Adams does not explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises: determining that a funding opportunity is associated with the collaboration proposal, wherein providing the interface further causes the user device to present the funding opportunity as claimed.
Klose teaches determining that a funding opportunity is associated with the collaboration proposal, wherein providing the interface further causes the user device to present the funding opportunity (Klose, Fig. 9, par. 0108-0119, published funding opportunity such as development project to entities, i.e. “[0118] In embodiments, in stage 985, selected entities' data relating to the pathable development project that has substantially complete funding and/or comprise results of individual matching steps may be published to at least one selected entity.[0119] In embodiments, in stage 990, tranche data may be generated and selected, using the one or more computers, for a respective one of the pathable development projects, to one or more entities that are to perform the development stages for the respective pathable development project.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the combination of Kenedy and Klose with the teaching of Adams because they are in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do so because the teaching of Klose would allow the combination of Kenedy and Adams to “…generate business deals to fund the research and development of innovative technology products, by using a distributed, networked computer system to integrate the elements of a deal from data provided by parties participating in the system; and to establish constructs, standards and protocols for the proper and efficient functioning of the system” (Klose, par. 0002-0003.)
As to claim 31, the rejection of claim 30 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Kenedy, Adams and Klose teaches the method of claim 30, wherein determining that the funding opportunity is associated with the collaboration proposal comprises identifying a match between the collaboration proposal and metadata associated with the funding opportunity (Klose, Fig. 9, par. 0108-0119, steps 960-990, Match Pathable Development projects with one or more funding organization…Publish selected entities data relating to the pathable development project that has substantially complete funding).
As to claim 32, the rejection of claim 29 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Kenedy and Adams teaches the method of claim 29. The combination of Kenedy and Adams does not explicitly teach wherein generating a collaboration proposal associated with the first dataset and the second dataset comprises: identifying a plurality of candidate proposals, each candidate proposal associated with the first dataset and the second dataset; determining that a funding opportunity is associated with a particular candidate proposal of the plurality of candidate proposals; and selecting the particular candidate proposal as the collaboration proposal as claimed.
Klose teaches wherein generating a collaboration proposal associated with the first dataset and the second dataset comprises: identifying a plurality of candidate proposals, each candidate proposal associated with the first dataset and the second dataset; determining that a funding opportunity is associated with a particular candidate proposal of the plurality of candidate proposals; and selecting the particular candidate proposal as the collaboration proposal (Klose, Fig. 9, par. 0108-0119, steps 960-990, identifying plurality of projects at step 950, determining funding by Match Pathable Development projects with one or more funding organization at steps 960-980… selecting the particular candidate proposal as the collaboration proposal by Publish selected entities data relating to the pathable development project that has substantially complete funding.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the combination of Kenedy and Klose with the teaching of Adams because they are in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do so because the teaching of Klose would allow the combination of Kenedy and Adams to “…generate business deals to fund the research and development of innovative technology products, by using a distributed, networked computer system to integrate the elements of a deal from data provided by parties participating in the system; and to establish constructs, standards and protocols for the proper and efficient functioning of the system” (Klose, par. 0002-0003.)
As to claim 33, the rejection of claim 29 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Kenedy and Adams teaches the method of claim 29. The combination of Kenedy and Adams does not explicitly teach wherein providing the interface further causes the user device to present a collaboration report comprising information about a funding opportunity associated with the collaboration proposal as claimed.
Klose teaches wherein providing the interface further causes the user device to present a collaboration report comprising information about a funding opportunity associated with the collaboration proposal (Klose, Fig. 9, par. 0108-0119, published funding opportunity such as development project to entities, i.e. “[0118] In embodiments, in stage 985, selected entities' data relating to the pathable development project that has substantially complete funding and/or comprise results of individual matching steps may be published to at least one selected entity.[0119] In embodiments, in stage 990, tranche data may be generated and selected, using the one or more computers, for a respective one of the pathable development projects, to one or more entities that are to perform the development stages for the respective pathable development project.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the combination of Kenedy and Klose with the teaching of Adams because they are in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do so because the teaching of Klose would allow the combination of Kenedy and Adams to “…generate business deals to fund the research and development of innovative technology products, by using a distributed, networked computer system to integrate the elements of a deal from data provided by parties participating in the system; and to establish constructs, standards and protocols for the proper and efficient functioning of the system” (Klose, par. 0002-0003.)
As to claim 34, the rejection of claim 29 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Kenedy and Adams teaches the method of claim 29. The combination of Kenedy and Adams does not explicitly teach wherein the second dataset is associated with one or more second researchers or second research entities, the one or more second researchers or second research entities being different from the first researcher or first research entity; and wherein the second dataset is not associated with the first researcher or first research entity as claimed.
Klose teaches wherein the second dataset is associated with one or more second researchers or second research entities, the one or more second researchers or second research entities being different from the first researcher or first research entity; and wherein the second dataset is not associated with the first researcher or first research entity (Klose, Fig. 9, par. 0108-0119, steps 960-990, the one or more second researchers or second research entities being different from the first researcher or first research entity… the second dataset is not associated with the first researcher or first research entity by identifying plurality of projects at step 950, determining funding by Match Pathable Development projects with one or more funding organization at steps 960-980… selecting the particular candidate proposal as the collaboration proposal by Publish selected entities data relating to the pathable development project that has substantially complete funding.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the combination of Kenedy and Klose with the teaching of Adams because they are in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do so because the teaching of Klose would allow the combination of Kenedy and Adams to “…generate business deals to fund the research and development of innovative technology products, by using a distributed, networked computer system to integrate the elements of a deal from data provided by parties participating in the system; and to establish constructs, standards and protocols for the proper and efficient functioning of the system” (Klose, par. 0002-0003.)
Regarding claim 42, 43, 44, 48, is essentially the same as claim 30, 31, 32, 30, respectively, except that it sets forth the claimed invention as system rather than method and rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
As to claim 36, Kenedy teaches a computer-implemented method for identifying collaboration opportunities, the computer-implemented method comprising (paragraphs 0056, 0115, 0215, 0280, computer implemented method for providing recommend data based on biological datasets correlation in a system comprising processor for executing instructions stored in non-transitory computer readable storage medium):
receiving, by a computing system, a first dataset from a first source, the first dataset being associated with a first researcher or first research entity (Figures 14-18, paragraphs 0016-0020, 0169-0171, receiving and generating plurality of datasets for plurality of individuals);
receiving, by the computing system, a second dataset from a second source (par. 0095, 0097, plurality of additional datasets from external databases, wherein additional datasets are interpreted as second dataset);
determining, by the computing system, one or more correlations between the first dataset from the first source and the second dataset from the second source (paragraphs 0100-0102, 0109, 0164, 0206, correlate datasets based on attributes and based on thresholds for overall degrees of similarity at the pangenetic and/or non-pangenetic levels);
determining, by the computing system, that at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset from the first source and the second dataset from the second source satisfies a threshold criteria (par. 0105-0108, 0123);
Kenedy does not explicitly teach responsive to determining that the at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfies the threshold criteria, generating, by the computing system, a collaboration proposal associated with the first dataset and the second dataset; providing, by the computing system, an interface to a user device to cause the user device to present the collaboration proposal as claimed.
Adams teaches responsive to determining that the at least one of the one or more correlations between the first dataset and the second dataset satisfies the threshold criteria, generating, by the computing system, a collaboration proposal associated with the first dataset and the second dataset; providing, by the computing system, an interface to a user device to cause the user device to present the collaboration proposal (par. 0096-0099, generating a collaboration proposal based on correlation threshold, i.e. “[0096] According to one embodiment of the present invention, if a determination is made that two sets of query-related objects are similar, a notification may be displayed or delivered to the researchers or research groups…[0099] According to another embodiment of the invention, after a determination has been made that one set of research information is similar to another set of research information, other actions may be taken or other information may be provided in addition to displaying a notification of the similarity. For instance, the notification may contain an option which allows the researchers involved to place a phone call to each other or send each other a message such as an email message, a text message, a voicemail message, or any other message known to those skilled in the art. As an alternative, the notification may merely contain contact information for the other researcher. The researchers may be provided with the option of contacting each other so the researchers may determine if they could benefit from sharing research data, sharing research equipment, or discussing research problems and ideas. Thus, allowing the researchers to contact each other may allow both researchers to benefit from each other's experience.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kenedy with the teaching of Adams because they are in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do so because the teaching of Adams would allow Kenedy to “identifying related database search efforts and a mechanism for notifying independent searchers of the similarity of their respective searches” (Adams, par. 0009-0012.)
The combination of Kenedy and Adams does not explicitly teach determining that a funding opportunity is associated with the first dataset and the second dataset; determining that the funding opportunity is associated with the first dataset and the second dataset as claimed.
Klose teaches determining that a funding opportunity is associated with the first dataset and the second dataset; determining that the funding opportunity is associated with the first dataset and the second dataset (Klose, Fig. 9, par. 0108-0119, published funding opportunity such as development project to entities, i.e. “[0118] In embodiments, in stage 985, selected entities' data relating to the pathable development project that has substantially complete funding and/or comprise results of individual matching steps may be published to at least one selected entity.[0119] In embodiments, in stage 990, tranche data may be generated and selected, using the one or more computers, for a respective one of the pathable development projects, to one or more entities that are to perform the development stages for the respective pathable development project.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the combination of Kenedy and Klose with the teaching of Adams because they are in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do so because the teaching of Klose would allow the combination of Kenedy and Adams to “…generate business deals to fund the research and development of innovative technology products, by using a distributed, networked computer system to integrate the elements of a deal from data provided by parties participating in the system; and to establish constructs, standards and protocols for the proper and efficient functioning of the system” (Klose, par. 0002-0003.)
As to claim 37, the rejection of claim 36 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Kenedy, Adams and Klose teaches the method of claim 36 wherein determining that a funding opportunity is associated with the first dataset and the second dataset comprises identifying a match between metadata associated with the funding opportunity one of the group consisting of i) the first dataset and ii) the second dataset (Klose, Fig. 7-9, par. 0089, 0108-0119, based on metadata such as deal terms and requirements, steps 960-990, Match Pathable Development projects with one or more funding organization…Publish selected entities data relating to the pathable development project that has substantially complete funding).
As to claim 38, the rejection of claim 36 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Kenedy, Adams and Klose teaches the method of claim 36 wherein determining that a funding opportunity is associated with the first dataset and the second dataset: identifying a plurality of candidate proposals, each candidate proposal associated with the first dataset and the second dataset; determining that a funding opportunity is associated with a particular candidate proposal of the plurality of candidate proposals; and selecting the particular candidate proposal as the collaboration proposal (Klose, Fig. 9, par. 0108-0119, steps 960-990, identifying plurality of projects at step 950, determining funding by Match Pathable Development projects with one or more funding organization at steps 960-980… selecting the particular candidate proposal as the collaboration proposal by Publish selected entities data relating to the pathable development project that has substantially complete funding.).
As to claim 39, the rejection of claim 36 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Kenedy, Adams and Klose teaches the method of claim 36 wherein providing the interface further causes the user device to present a collaboration report comprising information about the funding opportunity (Klose, Fig. 9, par. 0108-0119, published funding opportunity such as development project to entities, i.e. “[0118] In embodiments, in stage 985, selected entities' data relating to the pathable development project that has substantially complete funding and/or comprise results of individual matching steps may be published to at least one selected entity.[0119] In embodiments, in stage 990, tranche data may be generated and selected, using the one or more computers, for a respective one of the pathable development projects, to one or more entities that are to perform the development stages for the respective pathable development project.”).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenedy, Adams, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140058782 to Graves, Jr. (hereinafter “Graves”).
As to claim 35, the rejection of claim 29 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Kenedy and Adams teaches the method of claim 29 wherein :the first dataset comprises biological information for a first plurality of test subjects (paragraphs 0100-0102, 0109, 0164, 0206, correlate datasets based on attributes and based on thresholds for overall degrees of similarity at the pangenetic and/or non-pangenetic levels); the second dataset comprises biological information for a second plurality of test subjects (paragraphs 0100-0102, 0109, 0164, 0206, correlate datasets based on attributes and based on thresholds for overall degrees of similarity at the pangenetic and/or non-pangenetic levels).
The combination of Kenedy and Adams does not explicitly teach the collaboration proposal comprises one or more experiments to be performed on the first plurality of test subjects as claimed.
Greaves teaches the collaboration proposal comprises one or more experiments to be performed on the first plurality of test subjects (Graves, par. 0046, 0074, 0093-0095, 0100, i.e. “The research protocol building module 104 of the integrated scientific research environment 100 uses the hypothesis 220, variables 112, relationships 116, the literature review meta cognitive processor, research interests, and progressive user input to suggests ways to design the one or more experiments 230 in the plan. The integrated scientific research environment 100 also uses information from the experiment planner to structure the one or more database locations 118 and tables as well as database triggers for particular inputs.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of combination of Kenedy and Adams with the teaching of Graves because they are in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do so because the teaching of Graves would allow combination of Kenedy and Adams to “...provide an end-to-end solution for conducting a scientific research project. It is also an object of the present invention to integrate and standardize multiple processes by linking data generated from each part of a scientific research project and provide such data for review, analysis, comment, verification and publication. It is further an object of the present invention to provide researchers with the ability to communicate and collaborate in a distributed computing infrastructure so that they can contribute across the entire scientific research project to produce results. Lastly, it is an object of the present invention to provide a method for the input and output of one experiment to be used as the input of a further experiment....” (Graves, paragraphs 0004-0010.)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANHTAI V TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571)272-4085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding 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 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.
/ANHTAI V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights