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. Claim Status Claim s 1-18 are currently pending and under exam herein. Claim s 1-18 are rejected. Priority The instant application is a Continuation of International Patent Application No. PCT/ JP2020 /040743, filed October 30, 2020, which claims the benefit of Japanese Patent Application No. 2019-200321, filed November 1, 2019. At this point in the examination, the effective filling date of the claims is 11/01/2019. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statements filed 28 April 2022, 11 September 2024 and 24 July 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have therefore been considered. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Identifier “301” appears in FILLIN "Enter the appropriate information " \* MERGEFORMAT Figure 6 , however it is not described in the specification. In addition, it indicates a region that is closely associated with “As bases for inferring this peak height, two points (303) ”, making the reference unclear. Identifiers 701, 702 and 704 appear in Figure 10, however it is not described in the specification, making the reference unclear. Identifiers 1101 and 1102 appear in Figure 18, however it is not described in the specification, making the reference unclear. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract uses legal phraseology often used in patent claims in line 2 and line 6 of the abstract “ An information processing apparatus includes information acquisition means configured to acquire quantitative information ” and degree-of-contribution acquisition means configured to acquire a degree of contribution . The objection might be overcome by , for example , amending the abstract to remove the term “means”, such as by replacing it with a structural or functional description. Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general-purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Claim limi tation s “ information acquisition means configured to acquire quantitative information on a test substance, which is estimated by inputting spectrum information of a sample including the test substance into a learning mode ” (claim 1) , “ an information acquisition step for acquiring quantitative information on a test substance, which is estimated by inputting spectrum information of a sample including the test substance into a learning model ” (claim 18) ha ve been interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses “means” (or “step”) coupled with functional language “configure d to” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. A review of the specification shows that paragraphs [0028]-[0035] appear to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation of the acquisition “means” (or “step”) . Based on paragraphs [0028] -[ 0035] in the specification, the acquisition unit 41 is inside the control unit 37, meaning software executed by the CPU . However, the specific steps of the algorithm to acquire quantitate information are not recited in the specification. Thus, the description in the specification for the claimed acquisition “means” (or “step”) does not satisfy the requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); see below. Claim limitations “ degree-of-contribution acquisition means configured to acquire a degree of contribution of the acquired quantitative information on the test substance ” (claim 1) , “ the degree-of-contribution acquisition means acquires the degree of contribution based on a degree of influence to quantitative information on the test substance acquired when the spectrum information of the sample is changed ” (claim 5) , and “ a degree-of-contribution acquisition step for acquiring a degree of contribution of the acquired quantitative information on the test substance ” (claim 18) have been interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses “means” (or “step”) coupled with functional language “configured to” or “acquiring” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. A review of the specification shows that paragraphs [0028]-[0036] appear to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation of the degree-of-contribution acquisition means . Based on paragraphs [0028]-[0036] in the specification, the degree-of- contribution acquisition unit 46 is inside the control unit 37, meaning software executed by the CPU . However, the specific steps of the algorithm to acquire the degree of contribution are not recited in the specification. Thus, the description in the specification for the claimed degree-of-contribution acquisition “means” (or “step”) does not satisfy the requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); see below. Claim limitation “ estimation means configured to estimate quantitative information on the test substance by inputting spectrum information of the sample into the learning model ” (claim 11) has been interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses “means” coupled with functional language “configured to” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. A review of the specification shows that paragraphs [002 9 ]-[003 3 ] appear to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation of the estimation means . Based on paragraphs [002 9 ]-[003 3 ] in the specification, the estimation unit 4 4 is inside the control unit 37, meaning software executed by the CPU and based on paragraph [0092] “By doing the estimation for all nodes of the output layers, it is possible to obtain the basis for each classification result (the degree of contribution of a mass spectrum). However, the specific steps of the algorithm to estimate quantitative information on the test substance are not recited in the specification. Thus, the description in the specification for the claimed estimation means does not satisfy the requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); see below. Claim limitations “ display control means configured to perform control such that the acquired degree of contribution is displayed on a display unit ” (claim 6) and “ the display control means further performs control such that the acquired quantitative information on the test substance is displayed on the display unit ” (claim 7) have been interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses “means” coupled with functional language “configured to” or “performs” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. A review of the specification shows that paragraphs [0035]-[0036] appear to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation of the display control means . Based on paragraphs [0035]-[0036] in the specification, the display control unit 4 7 is inside the spectrum information acquisition unit 41, which is further inside the control unit 37, meaning software executed by the CPU . However, the specific steps of the algorithm to perform control are not recited in the specification. Thus, the description in the specification for the claimed display control means does not satisfy the requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); see below. Claim limitation “ analysis means for performing analysis for acquiring spectrum information of the sample ” (claim 13), “ the analytical means performs at least one of chromatography ” ( claim 14), and “ the analysis means performs time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry ” (claim 15) ha ve been interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses “means” coupled with functional language “performing” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. A review of the specification shows that paragraphs [0018]-[00 23 ] appear to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation of the analysis means /analytical means . Based on paragraphs [00 18 ]-[00 23 ] in the specification, the analysis apparatus 23 uses the chemical analysis method, the chemical method uses, for example, at least one selected from the group consisting of chromatography such as liquid chromatography , gas chromatography , or time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry . These are established physical instruments that acquire spectrum information. Because the specification links this structure to the claimed function, the claim has adequate corresponding structure. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. Claims 1-11 and 17- 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent c laims 1 and 18 recite “… information acquisition means configured to acquire quantitative information on a test substance ”, “ degree-of-contribution acquisition means configured to acquire a degree of contribution “and “… “ information acquisition step for acquiring quantitative information on a test substance ”, “ degree-of-contribution acquisition step for acquiring a degree of contribution ” , which ha ve been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) . Dependent claim 5 further recites “t he degree-of-contribution acquisition means acquires the degree of contribution based on a degree of influence to quantitative information on the test substance ”, which ha ve been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) . Dependent claim 6 further recites “display control means configured to perform control such that the acquired degree of contribution is displayed on a display unit ”, which ha ve been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) . Dependent claim 7 further recites “the display control means further performs control such that the acquired quantitative information on the test substance is displayed on the display unit ”, which ha ve been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) . Dependent claim 11 further recites, “ e stimation means configured to estimate quantitative information on the test substanc e”, which ha ve been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) . For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP § 2163.03, subsection VI. In this case, Applicant’s specification discloses at para. [0028]-[0036] , the acquisition unit 41 is inside the control unit 37 and the degree-of- contribution acquisition unit 46 is inside the control unit 37 (claim 1, 18 and 5). It further discloses at para. [0029] -[ 0033] in the specification, the estimation unit 44 is inside the control unit 37 and at para . [0092] “By doing the estimation for all nodes of the output layers, it is possible to obtain the basis for each classification result (the degree of contribution of a mass spectrum) (claim 11). It further discloses at para. 0035]-[0036] in the specification, the display control unit 47 is inside the spectrum information acquisition unit 41, which is further inside the control unit 37 (claim 6 and claim 7). The “units” discloses in the instant application, seem to be software executed by the CPU. However, the specific steps of the algorithm to perform the functions are not recited in the specification . While one of ordinary skill in the art could be capable of writing software for a deterministic process which employs the first arrangement of masked and unmasked sites, the understanding of one skilled in the art does not relieve the patentee of the duty to disclose sufficient structure to support means-plus-function claim terms. For the reasons discussed above, the specification does not provide a sufficient disclosure of the above limitations recited in 1-11 and 17- 18 to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention at the time the application was filed. For more information regarding the written description requirement, see MPEP §2161.01- §2163.07(b). Because dependent c laims 2, 3,4, 8, 9, 10, and 17 incorporate the unsupported limitation of claim 1 and do not include further limitations that correct the issue, they are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) . 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 3 recites the limitation " FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT the plurality of peaks " in FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The rejection might be overcome by for example, amending the claim to introduce clear antecedent basis for the “plurality of peaks”. For compact examination, it is assumed that the preceding suggested will be implemented. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 14 recites the limitation " the analytical means" in FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The rejection might be overcome by for example, amending the claim to provide proper antecedent basis for “the analytical means”, such as by replacing it with “the analysis means” to match the term introduced in claim 13. For compact examination, it is assumed that the preceding suggested will be implemented. Claims 1-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Independent claims 1 and 18 recite “… information acquisition means configured to acquire quantitative information on a test substance”, “degree-of-contribution acquisition means configured to acquire a degree of contribution “and “… “information acquisition step for acquiring quantitative information on a test substance”, “degree-of-contribution acquisition step for acquiring a degree of contribution”, which have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Dependent claim 5 further recites “the degree-of-contribution acquisition means acquires the degree of contribution based on a degree of influence to quantitative information on the test substance”. Dependent claim 6 further recites “display control means configured to perform control such that the acquired degree of contribution is displayed on a display unit”. Dependent claim 7 further recites “the display control means further performs control such that the acquired quantitative information on the test substance is displayed on the display unit”. Dependent claim 11 further recites, “estimation means configured to estimate quantitative information on the test substance”. All the limitations above invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s specification discloses at para. [0028]-[0036], the acquisition unit 41 is inside the control unit 37 and the degree-of- contribution acquisition unit 46 is inside the control unit 37 (claim 1, 18 and 5). It further discloses at para. [0029]-[0033] in the specification, the estimation unit 44 is inside the control unit 37 and at para. [0092] “By doing the estimation for all nodes of the output layers, it is possible to obtain the basis for each classification result (the degree of contribution of a mass spectrum) (claim 11). It further discloses at para. 0035] -[ 0036] in the specification, the display control unit 47 is inside the spectrum information acquisition unit 41, which is further inside the control unit 37 (claim 6 and claim 7). The “units” discloses in the instant application, seem to be software executed by the CPU. However, the specific steps of the algorithm to perform the functions are not recited in the specification. Because dependent claims 2 -4, 8 - 10, and 17 incorporate the unsupported limitation of claim 1 and do not include further limitations that correct the issue, they are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Therefore, claims 1-11 and 17-18 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more . The claims recite: (a) mathematical concepts, (e.g., mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); and (b) mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind, (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Subject matter eligibility evaluation in accordance with MPEP 2106 : Eligibility Step 1: Claims 1-17 are directed to an apparatus . Claim 18 is directed to a method (process). Therefore, these claims are encompassed by the categories of statutory subject matter, and thus, satisfy the subject matter eligibility requirements under step 1. [Step 1: YES] Eligibility Step 2A : First it is determined in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then it is determined in Prong Two whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Eligibility Step 2A Prong One: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, examination is performed that analyzes whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Independent claim 1 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas: An information processing apparatus comprising: information acquisition means configured to acquire quantitative information on a test substance, which is estimated by inputting spectrum information of a sample including the test substance into a learning model (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts) and degree-of-contribution acquisition means configured to acquire a degree of contribution of the acquired quantitative information on the test substance (mathematical concepts) Dependent claims 2- 5, 8-11, 13, 17-18 further recite the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas, as noted below. Dependent claims 2 further recites: The information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the degree of contribution is information regarding a degree of contribution of information included in the spectrum information in acquiring quantitative information on the test substance (i.e., mental processes) Dependent claim 3 further recites: The information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the spectrum information includes information regarding a graph having the plurality of peaks, wherein heights of the peaks correspond to the quantitative information on the substance included in the sample and positions of the peaks correspond to types of substances included in the sample ( mathematical concepts) Dependent claim 4 further recites: The information processing apparatus according to Claim 3, wherein the degree of contribution is information indicating a degree of contribution of each of the plurality of peaks in acquiring quantitative information on the test substance ( mathematical concepts) Dependent claim 5 further recites: The information processing apparatus according to Claim1 , wherein the degree-of-contribution acquisition means acquires the degree of contribution based on a degree of influence to quantitative information on the test substance acquired when the spectrum information of the sample is changed ( mathematical concepts) Dependent claim 8 further recites: The information processing apparatus according to Claim1 , wherein the learning model is a trained model which has been trained using, as training data, a plurality of sets of spectrum information for training generated based on spectrum information of the test substance and quantitative information on the test substance identified based on the spectrum information of the test substance ( mathematical concepts) Dependent claim 9 further recites: The information processing apparatus according to Claim 8, wherein the spectrum information for training is generated using the spectrum information of the test substance and random noise ( mathematical concepts) Dependent claim 10 further recites: The information processing apparatus according to Claim 9, wherein the random noise has a waveform obtained by combining a plurality of Gaussian functions ( mathematical concepts) Dependent claim 11 further recites: The information processing apparatus according to Claim1 , further comprising estimation means configured to estimate quantitative information on the test substance by inputting spectrum information of the sample into the learning model ( mathematical concepts) Dependent claim 13 further recites: The information processing apparatus according to Claim1 , further comprising analysis means for performing analysis for acquiring spectrum information of the sample (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts) Dependent claim 17 further recites: The information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the quantitative information is at least one of information indicating an amount of the test substance included in the sample, information indicating a concentration of the test substance included in the sample, information indicating whether or not the test substance exists in the sample, information indicating a ratio of a concentration or an amount of the test substance included in the sample with respect to a reference amount of the test substance, and information indicating a ratio of an amount or a concentration of the test substance included in the sample (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts) Independent claim 1 8 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas: A control method for an information processing apparatus, comprising: an information acquisition step for acquiring quantitative information on a test substance, which is estimated by inputting spectrum information of a sample including the test substance into a learning model ( i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts) and a degree-of-contribution acquisition step for acquiring a degree of contribution of the acquired quantitative information on the test substance mathematical concepts) Therefore, claims 2- 5, 8-11, 13, 17-18 recite an abstract idea. [Step 2A Prong One: YES] Eligibility Step 2A Prong Two: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, further examination is performed that analyzes if the claim recites additional elements that when examined as a whole integrates the judicial exception(s) into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claimed additional elements are analyzed to determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I); MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the abstract idea, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(III)). The judicial exceptions identified in Eligibility Step 2A Prong One are not integrated into a practical application because of the reasons noted below. Claims 2- 5, 8-11, 13, 17-18 do not recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception , and thus are part of the judicial exception. The additional element in dependent claim 6 include: comprising display control means configured to perform control such that the acquired degree of contribution is displayed on a display unit (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts) The additional element in dependent claim 7 include: the display control means further performs control such that the acquired quantitative information on the test substance is displayed on the display unit The additional element in dependent claim 12 include: the spectrum information is at least one of a chromatogram, a photoelectron spectrum, an infrared absorption spectrum, a nuclear magnetic resonance spectrum, a fluorescence spectrum, a fluorescent X-ray spectrum, an ultraviolet/visible absorption spectrum, a Raman spectrum, an atomic absorption spectrum, a flame emission spectrum, an emission spectrum, an X-ray absorption spectrum, an X-ray diffraction spectrum, a normal magnetic resonance absorption spectrum, an electron spin resonance spectrum, a mass spectrum, and a thermal analysis spectrum . The additional element in dependent claim 1 4 include: the analytical means performs at least one of chromatography, capillary electrophoresis, photoelectron spectroscopy, infrared absorption spectroscopy, nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, fluorescence spectroscopy, fluorescent X-ray spectroscopy, visible/ultraviolet absorption spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy, atomic absorption spectroscopy, flame emission spectroscopy, emission spectroscopy, X-ray absorption spectroscopy, X-ray diffraction spectroscopy, electron spin resonance spectroscopy using normal magnetic resonance absorption, mass spectroscopy, and thermal spectroscopy . The additional element in dependent claim 15 include: the analysis means performs time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry The additional element in dependent claim 16 include: the test substance is at least one of a protein, DNA, a virus, a fungus, a water-soluble vitamin, a fat-soluble vitamin, an organic acid, a fatty acid, an amino acid, a sugar, a pesticide, and an environmental hormone. The additional elements of the acquired degree of contribution displayed on a display unit (claim 6 ) ; the acquired degree of contribution displayed on a display unit (claim 7); the spectrum information can be any one of many types of spectra, including a chromatogram (claim 12); the analytical means performs at least one type of analysis chosen from chromatography, capillary electrophoresis (claim 14); to the analysis means performs time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (claim 15) and the test substance is at least one of a protein, DNA, a virus, a fungus, a water-soluble vitamin, a fat-soluble vitamin, an organic acid, a fatty acid, an amino acid, a sugar, a pesticide, and an environmental hormone (claim 16), are insignificant extra- solution activities that are part of the data gathering process used in the recited judicial exceptions (see MPEP 2106.05(g) . When all limitations in claims 1-18 have been considered as a whole , the claims are deemed to not recite any additional elements that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, and therefore claims 1-18 are directed to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(d)). [Step 2A Prong Two: NO] Eligibility Step 2B : Because the claims recite an abstract idea, and do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are probed for a specific inventive concept. The judicial exception alone cannot provide that inventive concept or practical application (MPEP 2106.05). Identifying whether the additional elements beyond the abstract idea amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05A i -vi). The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because the reasons noted below. Claims 2 - 5, 8-11, 13, 17-18 do not recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception. The additional elements recited in dependent claim s 6 ,7,12,14,15 and 16 are identified above, and carried over from Step 2A : Prong Two along with their conclusions for analysis at Step 2B . Any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity at step Step 2A : Prong Two was re-evaluated at step 2B , because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and all additional elements and combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional elements of the display control means configured to perform control such that the acquired degree of contribution is displayed on a display unit (claim 6) ; the display control means further performs control such that the acquired quantitative information on the test substance is displayed on the display unit (claim 7) ; the spectrum information can be any one of many types of spectra, including a mass spectrum (claim 12); the analysis means performs many types of analysis, including mass spectroscopy (claim 14) are conventional. Evidence for conventionality is demonstrated by Watson, Jack Throck ., et al. (“Display-Oriented Data System for Multiple Ion Detection with Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry in Quantifying Biomedically Important Compounds.” Analytical Chemistry , vol. 45, no. 12, 1 Oct. 1973, pp. 2071–2078). Watson, Jack Throck ., et al. teach analyzing mass spectrum data gathered from a mass spectroscopy apparatus “ GLC -MS ” ( instrumentation, materials and procedures, page 2072 ) for obtaining quantitative data acquired from a test substance ” (Figure 2, page 2074 and Figure 5, page 2075) , and that the degree of contribution, as peak area , can also be displayed (Figure 8, page 2076) . These techniques have long been used in the field, as the article was published in 1973. Thus, presenting acquired information from a test substance on a display was well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. The additional elements of the analysis means performs time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (claim 15) and the test substance is at least one of a protein, DNA, a virus, a fungus, a water-soluble vitamin, a fat-soluble vitamin, an organic acid, a fatty acid, an amino acid, a sugar, a pesticide, and an environmental hormone (claim 16) are conventional. Evidence for conventionality is demonstrated by Okamoto et al. ( US2004 / 0137491A1 ). Okamoto et al. teach analyzing a biological sample using time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry [ 0006, lines 5-7]. The authors explain that their method is applicable to complex forming s ubstances , includ ing “ proteins s uch as antigens, antibodies and enzymes, an enzyme and a s ubstrate s pecifically binding to the enzyme, or mutually complementary nucleic acids ” [0038]. They also provide a background about the Time-of-Flight Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry ( TOF -SIMS) , “ Since the TOF -SIM S method is a highly sensitive measuring method, irrespective of the type of the apparatus used s uch as the reflectron type or the s ector type, oligonucleotides formed as a molecular monolayer on, for example, a gold s ubstrate on which the influence of charge up is small may be analyzed (Proceeding of the 12" International Conference on Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry 951, 1999). Thus, showing that the technique was already known in 1999, and continu ed to be used in 2004, reflecting that it is was well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. Therefore, when taken alone, all additional elements in dependent claim s 6, 7, 12, 14, 15, 16 do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exceptions(s). Even when evaluated as combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exceptions (s) into patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, claims 1-18 are deemed to not contribute an inventive concept, i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05(II)). [Step 2B : NO] 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (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. Clai ms FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-9, 11-14, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) and (a)(2) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Hiromi et al. ( JP2018152000A ). Claims 1 and 18 are drawn to an apparatus and method that takes spectrum data from a test substance, runs it through a learning model to estimate quantitative information about the substance, and then calculates the degree of contribution (claim 1 and 18) . In some embodiments: the degree of information is a measure of how the spectrum data help determine the quantitative value for the test substance (claim 2); the spectrum information is a graph with one or more peaks, where the peak heights show how much of each substance is present and the peak positions correspond to types of substances found in the sample (claim 3); the degree of contribution is information showing how much each of the multiple peaks contributes to obtaining the quantitative information about the test substance (claim 4); the degree of contribution means determines how much the sample’s spectrum information influences the quantitative information about the test substance when the sample’s spectrum information is changed (claim 5); the display control means controls the display so that the acquired degree of contribution is shown on a display unit (claim 6); the display control means also controls the display so that the acquired quantitative information about the test substance is shown on the display unit (claim 7); the learning model is a trained model that has been trained using multiple sets of spectrum information. Each training set includes spectrum information of the test substance and the corresponding quantitative information identified from that spectrum (claim 8); the spectrum information used for training is created using the spectrum information of the test substance together with random noise (claim 9); the estimation means estimate quantitative information on the test substance by inputting the sample’s spectrum information into the learning model (claim 11); the spectrum information can be any one of many types of spectra, including a chromatogram (claim 12); the analysis means that perform an analysis to obtain the spectrum information of the sample (claim 13); the analytical means performs at least one type of analysis chosen from chromatography, capillary electrophoresis (claim 14); the test substance is at least one of a protein, DNA, a virus, a fungus, a water-soluble vitamin, a fat-soluble vitamin, an organic acid, a fatty acid, an amino acid, a sugar, a pesticide, and an environmental hormone (claim 16); the quantitative information can be one or more: mount of the test substance included in the sample, a concentration of the test substance included in the sample , whether or not the test substance exists in the sample , a ratio of a concentration or an amount of the test substance included in the sample with respect to a reference amount of the test substance , and i ndicating a ratio of an amount or a concentration of the test substance included in the sample (claim 17). Claim 1 and claim 18 : With respect to the limitation of the information acquisition means configured to acquire quantitative information on a test substance, which is estimated by inputting spectrum information of a sample including the test substance into a learning model , Hiromi et al. teaches an analysis apparatus and method that estimates quantitative information about a test substance by inputting spectrum data obtained from samples into a machine learning model. The model is trained using data collected from multiple samples and employs multivariate analysis with supervised learning to perform the estimation “ an analysis data analyzing apparatus for constructing a machine learning model based on teacher data which is analysis data on a plurality of samples ”; “ In the analysis data analysis apparatus and the analysis data analysis method according to the present invention, the machine learning includes a multivariate analysis in which so-called supervised learning is performed. In addition, although there is no particular limitation on the type of analyzer capable of obtaining the data to be analyzed, specifically, for example, mass spectrum data obtained by a mass spectrometer ” [0012-0014]. With respect to the limitation the degree-of-contribution acquisition means configured to acquire a degree of contribution of the acquired quantitative information on the test substance , Hiromi et al. teaches the analysis apparatus and method to obtain a degree of contribution from mass spectrum data obtained by subjecting a biological sample derived from a subject to mass spectrometry with a mass spectrometer “ FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram showing an example of a contribution degree distribution obtained in the disease discrimination apparatus of the present embodiment and a random number distribution for determining a threshold value obtained from the contribution degree distribution ” [ FIG 5; 0 025 ]. With respect to claim 2 , Hiromi et al. teaches the degree of information is a measure of how the spectrum data help determine the quantitative value for the test substance “ a schematic diagram showing an example of a contribution degree distribution obtained in the disease discrimination apparatus of the present embodiment ” [ FIG 5; 0025 ]. With respect to claim 3, Hiromi et al. teaches the spectrum information is a graph with one or more peaks (in Figure 9, a mass spectrum is shown for each sample, and it is displayed as a series of peaks plotted along the mass-to-charge m/z axis), where the peak heights show how much of each substance is present “ setting the signal intensity value of each peak as the value of the element ” and the peak positions correspond to types of substances found in the sample (“ peak position “ mass-to-charge ratio m / z in the lateral direction ” [FIG 9; 004]. With respect to claim 4, Hiromi et al. teaches the degree of contribution is information showing how much each of the multiple peaks contributes to obtaining the quantitative information about the test substance “m ass spectrum data obtained from a biological sample includes information derived from various substances that are very commonly found in living bodies. Therefore, the number of peaks is usually very large. That is, such data is multidimensional data with a very large number of dimension s” [005] and “ according to the contribution degree calculated for each input dimension ” [0019]. With respect to claim 5 , Hiromi et al. teaches the degree of contribution means determines how much the sample’s spectrum information influences the quantitative information about the test substance when the sample’s spectrum information is changed, “ Also in discriminant analysis or regression analysis by machine learning using a support vector machine, if both input and output take continuous values, similarly, it is possible to calculate a partial differential value or equivalent to partial differential Or calculate a difference when the input is slightly changed as a value to be changed. If partial derivatives at each data point or values corresponding to them can be calculated, the degree of contribution can be calculated from that value ” [0018]. With respect to claim 6 , Hiromi et al. teaches the display control me