DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Drawings The drawings are objected to because figure 1 , and figures 6-8 reference designators 70a-70f lack suitable descriptive legends. See 37 CFR 1.84(o). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities. The equations throughout the specification are not legible. See 37 CFR 1.52(a)(iv). Appropriate correction is required. 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 9 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subje ct matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a computer program, i.e., “software per se”. The claim is directed to a calculation program , reciting a “a calculation program causing a computer to perform repeating a n updating processing. See MPEP 2106.03.I. Claims 1 -20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea ) without significantly more. Regarding claim 1, under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 1, the claim recites Mathematical concepts. The claim recites mathem atical calculation s and mathematical relationships for solving an optimization problem . Specifically, the claim recites the following: perform a matrix transformation, and an update, the matrix transformation including deriving a second matrix by transforming a plurality of first row vectors included in a first matrix, the first matrix being input, the update including an update of a first variable set, and an update of a second variable set, the update of the second variable set including obtaining the second variable set after the update by adding a first update function of the updated first variable set to the second variable set before the update, the first update function including at least one of a first multiply-add operation or a second multiply-add operation, the first multiply-add operation including a multiply-add operation of the updated first variable set and a component of the second matrix, the second multiply-add operation including a multiply-add operation of a component of the second matrix and a variable dependent on the updated first variable set. See, e.g. specification p. 4-12, and figure 4 . For these reasons, these are steps in a mathematical calculation using mathematical relationships. Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, additional elements not reciting Mathematical equations and mathematical calculation s thereof include: a calculating device, comprising a proces sor configured to perform processing . This additional element does no more than generally link the additional element to the mathematical calculations in a manner that in effect merely recites “apply it” to the math , or recite mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components . Furthermore, the specification supports this assertion, stating “a general-purpose computer may be used as the calculating device”. See specification p. 4 lines 4-6. For this reason the claim is not integrated into a practical application. Moreover, under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the claim, considered individually and as an ordered combination does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed in the Step 2A prong 2 analysis, the claim merely generally links the additional element to the math. Furthermore as stated in the Step 2A prong 2 analysis, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the specification supports this assertion, stating “a general-purpose computer may be used as the calculating device”. See specification p. 4 lines 4-6. For these reasons claim 1 elements considered individually and as an ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-18 are rejected for at least the reasons cited with respect to the claim 1 analysis. Under the Step 2A prong 1 analysis, claims 18-21 merely further mathematically limit the claim 1 7 mathematica l elements recited. Claims 2-14, and 17 contain no further additional elements that would require further consideration under Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B. Claim s 15-16, and 18 further recites the following additional element s: a third processing part and a fourth processing part with portions of calculations performed simultaneously (claim 15), a first processing part, a second processing part with portions of calculations performed simultaneously (claim 16), and a fifth processing part and a sixth processing part with portions of calculations performed simultaneously (claim 18) . Under the Step 2A prong 2 analysis, the different processing parts continue to merely generically recited computing components. Furthermore the performing different portions of calculations simultaneously comprises an insignificant extra solution activity. For these reasons claim s 15-16, and 18 are not integrated into a practical application. Under the step 2B analysis, as stated above, the different processing parts are merely generically recited. Furthermore the performing different portions of calculations simultaneously is well understood, routine and conventional activity. See J.L. Hennessy et al., Computer Architecture: A quantitative approach , Elsevier 2014 (hereinafter “Hennessy”), which discloses various plural processor architectures some of which have been in use since the earlies electronic computers, and that support multi-programmed processors running many tasks simultaneously, p. 5 28 -532. For these reasons claim 15-16, and 18 considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. Regarding claim 19, under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 1, the claim recites Mathematical concepts. The claim recites mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships for solving an optimization problem. Specifically, the claim recites the following: perform repeating an update, the update including an update of a first variable set and an update of a second variable set, the first variable set including a first variable x i (the ordinal number i being an integer of 1 to N, and N being one integer not less than 2), the second variable set including a second variable y i , the update of the second variable set includes updating the second variable y i by adding a second function F i to the second variable y i before the update, the second function F i including the first variable x i as a variable, the second function F i including a parameter a i , the ordinal number p being one integer not less than 1 and not more than N, the ordinal number q being one integer not less than 1 and not more than N, the ordinal number q being different from the ordinal number p, a parameter a p being different from a parameter a q . See, e.g. specification p. 4-12, and figure 4. For these reasons, these are steps in a mathematical calculation using mathematical relationships. Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, additional elements not reciting Mathematical equations and mathematical calculations thereof include: a calculati on program, the calculation program causing a computer to perform processing . This additional element does no more than generally link the additional element to the mathematical calculations in a manner that in effect merely recites “apply it” to the math, or recite mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Furthermore, the specification supports this assertion, stating “a general-purpose computer may be used as the calculating device”. See specification p. 4 lines 4-6. For this reason the claim is not integrated into a practical application. Moreover, under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the claim, considered individually and as an ordered combination does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed in the Step 2A prong 2 analysis, the claim merely generally links the additional element to the math. Furthermore as stated in the Step 2A prong 2 analysis, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the specification supports this assertion, stating “a general-purpose computer may be used as the calculating device”. See specification p. 4 lines 4-6. For these reasons claim 1 elements considered individually and as an ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 20 is directed to a method that would be practiced by t he execution of the calculation program of claim 19 . All steps performed in the method of claim 20 would be executed by the calculation program of claims 19 . The analysis with respect to claim 1 9 applies equally to claim 30 . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1 - 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101 . The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. Applicant claims apparatus, a method , a computer program, and a recording medium reciting steps to a calculation , wherein the apparatus as in claim 1 comprises: a processor configured to perform a matrix transformation processing , and an update processing , the matrix transformation processing including deriving a second matrix by transforming a plurality of first row vectors included in a first matrix, the first matrix being input, the update processing including an update of a first variable set, and an update of a second variable set, the update of the second variable set including obtaining the second variable set after the update by adding a first update function of the updated first variable set to the second variable set before the update, the first update function including at least one of a first multiply-add operation or a second multiply-add operation, the first multiply-add operation including a multiply-add operation of the updated first variable set and a component of the second matrix, the second multiply-add operation including a multiply-add operation of a component of the second matrix and a variable dependent on the updated first variable set. The calculation program as in claim 19 comprises: the calculation program causing a computer to perform repeating an update processing , the update processing including an update of a first variable set and an update of a second variable set, the first variable set including a first variable x i (the ordinal number i being an integer of 1 to N, and N being one integer not less than 2), the second variable set including a second variable y i , the update of the second variable set includes updating the second variable y i by adding a second function F i to the second variable y i before the update, the second function F i including the first variable x i as a variable, the second function F i including a parameter a i , the ordinal number p being one integer not less than 1 and not more than N, the ordinal number q being one integer not less than 1 and not more than N, the ordinal number q being different from the ordinal number p, a parameter a p being different from a parameter a q . The primary reason for indication of allowable subj ect matter is the specific steps of : the update of the first variable set, update of the second variable step including first and second multiply-add operations and wherein the second multiply-add operation including a multiply-add operation of a component of the second matrix and a variable dependent on the update first variable set in combination with the remaining limitations as in claim 1; and the update of the fist variable set, update of the second variable set, the update of the second variable set includes updating the second variable y i by adding a second function F i to the second variable y i before the update in combination with the remaining limitations as in claim 19. K. Tatsumura et al., FPGA-based Simulation Bifurcation Machine , 2019 29 th International Conference on Field Programmable Logic and Applications (FPL) 2019, (hereinafter “Tatsumura”), discloses an FPGA implementation of simulated bifurcation including updating calculations, matrix-vector multiplication, and parallel processing (introduction, eqn 4, section IIID, fig 4). Tatsumura does not, however, teach or suggest the above specific calculations claimed. H. Goto et al., High-performance combinatorial optimization based on classical mechanics , Science Advances, Research Article 3 February 2021 (hereinafter “Goto”) discloses parallel solutions to combinatorial optimization problems using discrete simulated bifurcation (Introduction , p. 7-8 ) . Goto does not, however, teach or suggest the above specific calculations claimed. J.D. Crawford, Introduction to bifurcation theor y , Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol 63, No 4, 1991 p. (hereinafter “Crawford”), provides a treaties on bifurcation theory with emphasis on Hopf bifurcation with more than one parameter and bifurcations in the real Landau-Ginzburg equation with bifurcation by a continuous symmetry (abstract). Crawford does not, however, teach or suggest the above specific calculations claimed. Simulated Bifurcation Machine (SBM) User Manual , Toshiba Digital Solutions Corporation, Rev 1.01, 2019, (hereinafter “SBM”) discloses Applicant’s users’ manual with respect to aspects of the claimed invention. SMB does not, however, teach or suggest the above specific calculations claimed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT EMILY E LAROCQUE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (469)295-9289 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 10:00am - 1200pm, 2:00pm - 8pm ET M-F . 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 Jyoti Mehta can be reached on 571-27 0 - 3 995 . 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. /EMILY E LAROCQUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2182