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. Status of Claims Claim 1 pending and examined on the merits. Priority The instant application filed on 7/7/2022 claims the benefit of foreign priority to Patent Application No. CN202110834402.1 filed on 7/23/2021. A "Certificate of Availability of a Certified Patent Document in a Digital Library" has been filed on 8/19/2022, however there is no English translated copy provided. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority; however, it is noted that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202110834402.1 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Therefore, until the application is perfected, the effective filing date of the instant application is 7/7/2022. The applicant is reminded that amendments to the claims and specification must comply with 35 U.S.C. § 120 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.121 to maintain priority to an earlier-filed application. Claim amendments may impact the effective filing date if new subject matter is introduced that lacks support in the originally filed disclosure. If an amendment adds limitations that were not adequately described in the parent application, the claim may no longer be entitled to the priority date of the earlier filing. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 1 line 20, "a microarray gene date set" should read "a microarray gene data set". Page 1 line 21, "a breast cancer microarray gene date set" should read "a breast cancer microarray gene data set". Page 14 line 22, "an existing slap swarm algorithm" should read "an existing salp swarm algorithm". Page 14 lines 22-23, "as shown in a table 1" should read "as shown in table 1" Page 14 line 24, "are shown in a table 2" should read "are shown in table 2". Page 14 line 25, "as shown in a table 3" should read "as shown in table 3". Page 14 line 26, "as shown in a table 4" should read "as shown in table 4". Page 16 lines 7-8, "improvement on the algorithm is effectively, thereby helping the algorithm jumping out of local optimization" should read "improvement on the algorithm is effective, thereby helping the algorithm jump out of local optimization". Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 page 1 lines 18-20, "setting a global optimum fitness value is best , performing initialized assignment of best to positive infinity, setting a global optimal individual to be a bestposition , and initially setting the bestposition " should read "setting a global optimum fitness value to best , performing initialized assignment of best to positive infinity, setting a global optimal individual to be a bestposition , and initially setting the bestposition ". Additionally, ensure all uses of " bestposition " variable are italicized to emphasize that it is a variable instead of a literal "best position" (e.g. page 6 line 8). Claim 1 page 1 line 26, "via transfer functions shown in formulae (1)-(2)" should read "via transfer functions of formulae (1)-(2)" (should be a positive recitation). Claim 1 page 3 line 18, "wherein k is equal to 1, 2, 3..., M/2" should read "wherein k is equal to 1, 2, 3, ..., M/2". Claim 1 page 3 line 21, "represents a k th individual the jth column dimensionality value in a t th generation initial salp population F t and e is the natural constant" should read "represents a dimensionality value in the j th column of the k th individual in a t th generation initial salp population F t , and e is the natural constant" . Claim 1 page 5 line 15, "from small to big" should read "from small to large". Claim 1 page 5 line 16, "to obtain the t th generation salp population Y t " should read "to obtain the t th generation salp population Y t ". Claim 1 page 5 line 19, "smaller than the global optimum fitness value best" should read "smaller than the global optimum fitness value best ". Additionally, ensure all uses of "best" variable are italicized to emphasize that it is a variable instead of a literal "best". Claim 1 page 6 line 1, "keeping the global optimum individual bestposition with the" should read "keeping the global optimum individual bestposition with the". Claim 1 page 6 lines 5-6, "then returning to the Step S5 for next an iteration" should read "then returning to Step S5 for the next iteration". Claim 1 page 6 lines 9-11, "the selection data set obtained at the time is ae dimensionality-reducing gene feature data set of the medical diseases" should read "the selection data set obtained at the time is a dimensionality-reducing gene feature data set of the medical diseases". 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 1 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 1 page 1 line 12 recites "defining a female salp population". It is not clear if the gender of the population of salps is being explicitly claimed here and through o ut the claim for some functional reason or if Applicant is simply exercising their right of being their own lexicographer , as there is no male counterpart mentioned in the claims or anywhere else in the disclosure. The state of the art appears to have conventional terms for “leader” and “follower” salp populations, however there is no mention of gendered populations. Additionally, the term “female” is not found in the prior art and does not appear to overlap with these conventional terms. It is noted that the recitation of "a t th generation binary salp population" on page 2 line 1 does not help clarify the matter other than to make the distinction that the binary population is the population after converting each dimensionality value into 0 or 1. To further prosecution and for clarity of record, the term "female" is interpreted simply as a term to differentiate between it and a binary salp population. Claim 1 page 1 line 13 recites "i.e., there are M individuals". The abbreviation "i.e." roughly means "in other words" which renders the statements that following ambiguous as to whether both the preceding and following statements apply, or if the latter supersedes the former. To further prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as "wherein there are M individuals". Claim 1 page 1 line 17 recites "0th of the female salp population Y 0 ". It is not clear what a "0th of the female salp population" is given the plain meaning of the words used. However, given the context and to further prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as "an initialized data matrix of the female salp population Y 0 ". Claim 1 page 2 lines 7-8 re cite "and is generated a random function before operation every time", and page 3 line 19 and page 5 lines 1-2 "the random function". It is not clear how a "random function" would be chosen to generate a random number between 0 and 1, or if the function is not random (a particular function) and its purpose is to generate the random number between 0 and 1. Additionally, it is not clear if a random number between 0 and 1 is intended to be generated once before operation, or once before each iteration within a single operation. To further prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as "and is generated by a random number generator function before each iteration" and "the random number generator function", respectively. Claim 1: page 2 line 22; page 3 lines 10 and 15; page 4 lines 3, 11, and 17; page 5 lines 12 and 18; and page 6 line 5 recite "adopting" in various contexts (formulas, algorithms, etc.). The metes and bounds for adopting are not clear because the recitations are more neutral and non-committal than a term such as "using". To further prosecution and for clarity of record, the instances of the term "adopting" are interpreted as "using". Claim 1: page 2 line 22; page 4 line 11; and page 5 line 14 recites "sequencing" individuals. The term "sequencing", in the field of bioinformatics, generally refers to subjecting a library generated from a biological sample to a sequencer for producing sequence data of nucleic acids present in said sample. Due to this ambiguity (among other possible interpretations), it is not clear how the term is applied in these instances. To further prosecution, and for clarity of record, the instances of the term are instead interpreted as "ranking". Claim 1 page 3 lines 19-20 recites " c t is a control parameter represented by a formula (6)". In the definition of formula (6), the variable "T" is not defined. This variable is also not defined in the specification. Looking to the state of the art, this formula appears frequently and in Ibrahim et al. (Ibrahim et al. "Improved salp swarm algorithm based on particle swarm optimization for feature selection." Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing 10.8 (2019): 3155-3169) it is identified as Tmax and defined as the maximum number of iterations to be performed. Therefore, to further prosecution, the variable T is interpreted as the maximum number of iterations to be performed. Claim 1 page 4 line 14 recites "exploring and developing the tth generation initial salp population Ft by adopting formulae (8)-(16)". The metes and bounds of "exploring and developing" are not clear in the claim, and the instant specification is silent on the matter. To further prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as "updating the t th generation initial salp population F t by adopting formulae (8)-(16)". Claim 1 page 5 line 14 recites "sequencing totally 2M individuals". It is not clear how the word "totally" is meant to further limit "2M individuals", and whether the "2M" represents the number 2 million, or if it is meant to represent "2 times M" or "2*M". To further prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as "sequencing 2*M individuals". Claim 1 page 6 lines 4-6 recite "judging whether a current value of t is equal to T or not, if not, updating the value of t by adopting the current value of t plus 1, and then returning to the Step S5 for next an iteration; if it is equal to T". There is a lack of antecedent basis for "T". While the variable appears in formula (6), it is not defined in the claim. To further prosecution, the variable is interpreted as being introduced and defined as interpreted for the limitation in Claim 1 page 3 lines 19-20. Citation of Pertinent Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Abualigah et al., Salp swarm algorithm: a comprehensive survey. Neural Comput & Applic 32, 11195–11215 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-019-04629-4 , A review of SSAs, their current state and potential future Faris et al., " Salp Swarm Algorithm: Theory, Literature Review, and Application in Extreme Learning Machines" In: Nature-Inspired Optimizers. Studies in Computational Intelligence (2020), vol 811. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12127-3_11 , SSA review and applications Hegazy et al., Improved salp swarm algorithm for feature selection. J King Saud Univ Comput Inf Sci. (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2018.06.003 , An improved SSA using a weighted control parameter Ibrahim et al., "Improved salp swarm algorithm based on particle swarm optimization for feature selection." Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing 10.8 (2019): 3155-3169 , An improved SSA based on a differing optimization algorithm 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process, a mathematical concept, organizing human activity, or a law of nature or natural phenomenon without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP § 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter (Step 1: YES) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1). In the instant application, the claims recite the following limitations that equate to an abstract idea: Claim 1: “ partitioning the microarray gene data set of the medical diseases" provides organizing information (partitioning a data set) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. " defining a female salp population Y" provides organizing information (defining a population) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. " setting a global optimum fitness value is best" provides organizing information (setting values) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. " setting a maximum time of an iteration of the female salp population T=50" provides organizing information (setting values) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. " performing a t th iteration on the female salp population" includes: "converting each dimensionality value of each individual in a (t- 1) th generation female salp population Y t-1 into 0 or 1 via transfer functions shown in formulae (1)-(2)" provides a mathematical calculation (converting values requires using a mathematical [transfer] function) that is considered a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea. "constructing feature subsets of each individual in the (t- 1) th generation female salp population" provides organizing information (sub-setting data) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. "calculating fitness values of each individual in the (t- 1) th generation female salp population by adopting a formula (3) and a formula (4)" provides a mathematical calculation (calculating fitness values requires mathematical calculation) that is considered a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea. " updating the dimensionality values from a first individual to the M/2th individual in the t th generation binary salp population B t by adopting a formula (5)" provides organizing information (updating values) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. "updating the dimensionality values from the (M/2+ 1)ᵗʰ individual to the M th individual in the t th generation binary salp population Bt by adopting a formula (7)" provides organizing information (updating values) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. " calculating the fitness values of each individual in the t th generation initial salp population F t by adopting a method same with those in the Steps 5.1-5.3" provides a mathematical calculation (calculating fitness values requires mathematical calculation) that is considered a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea. " updating the t th generation initial salp population F t by adopting formulae (8)-(16)" provides organizing information (updating values) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. " calculating the fitness values of the t th generation intermediate salp population G t by adopting the method same with those in the Steps S5.1-5.3" provides a mathematical calculation (calculating fitness values requires mathematical calculation) that is considered a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea. " comparing the minimum fitness value of the t th generation salp population Y t with the global optimum fitness value best" provides a comparison (comparing fitness values) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. " judging whether a current value of t is equal to T or not" provides an evaluation (evaluating if values are equal) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. These recitations are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and comparing information regarding a sample or test to a control or target data in Univ. of Utah Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics Corp. (774 F.3d 755, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO (689 F.3d 1303, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2012)) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind or are mathematical relationships. Therefore, these limitations fall under the “Mental process” and “Mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. As such, claim 1 recite s an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES). Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). The judicial exceptions listed above are not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite an additional element or elements that reflects an improvement to technology. Specifically, the claims recite the following additional elements: Claim 1: “ acquiring a microarray gene data set of medical diseases" provides insignificant extra-solution activities (obtaining data is a pre-solution activity involving data gathering steps) that do not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. " extracting the gene feature data in the microarray gene data set of the medical diseases in these columns correspondingly to form a selection data set" provides insignificant extra-solution activities (extracting data is a post-solution activity involving data gathering steps) that do not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The steps for acquiring and extracting data are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not serve to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application because they are pre- and post-solution activities involving data gathering steps (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO). Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not serve to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, or equate to mere instructions to apply the recited exception in a generic way or in a generic computing environment. The limitations for receiving and outputting data, and training and applying computational models are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not serve to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application. Furthermore, no inventive concept is claimed by these limitations as they are well-understood, routine, and conventiona l. The additional elements do not comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: No). As such, claim 1 is n ot patent eligible. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Regarding 35 USC 102/103 ; w hile there is prior art demonstrating an improved SSA ( Hegazy et al. and Ibrahim et al.), these methods are not as narrowly defined as the instant claims (e.g. claiming only a single salp population size of M=20) and do not make use of the "self-adaptive control parameter" in the same manner as the instant claims. Specifically, Ibrahim defines the same formula as formula (6) of the instant claims, however Ibrahim does not use or suggest the same manner of "updating the dimensionality values" claimed in Steps S5.4, and Hegazy cites "a new control parameter" but relies on adding "inertia weight" to adjust the best solution. Finally, the specific formulas of the instant claim together are not found in or suggested to be an obvious combination by the reviewed prior art. Inquiries Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Robert A. Player whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-6350 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri, 8am-5pm . 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 attemp ts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Larry D . Riggs can be reached at 571-270-3062. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /R.A.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 1686 /LARRY D RIGGS II/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1686