DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 09/30/2022. Claims 1-17 are pending. 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. Examiner Notes Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Examiner may also include cited interpretations encompassed within parenthesis, e.g. ( Examiner’s interpretation ), for clarity. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution. 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement s (IDS) submitted on 09/30/2022, 11/15/2023, 03/19/2025, and 09/30/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement s are being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to because Fig.1 , Fig.3 , and Fig.4 are not legible . 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. 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 s 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in MPEP 2106 and has provided such analysis below. To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires: Step 1 . Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter ( see MPEP 2106.03 ); Step 2A . Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea ( MPEP 2106.04 ); Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A) . Under the first prong , examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) . The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d) . Step 2B . If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106 ). Step 1 : Claims 1-7 are directed to a method , as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process . Claims 8-11 are directed to a system, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of machine . Claim 12 is directed to a computer readable medium , as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a manufacture . Claims 13-17 are directed to a n apparatus , as such these claims fall within the statutory category of manufacture . Step 2A, Prong 1 (Claim 1) : The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mathematical Concepts , given the broadest reasonable interpretation. In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded . As per claim 1 , the claim recites the limitations of: using statistical metrics to quantify a simulation task of the industrial system so as to extract features of the simulation task; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.) training data by use of a machine learning algorithm based on the features of the simulation task, the corresponding parameter groups having different values and the performance metrics (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C), “Examples of mathematical calculations recited in a claim include: [ ] v. using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, In re Maucorps , 609 F.2d 481, 482, 203 USPQ 812, 813 (CCPA 1979)”. Step 2A, Prong 2 (Claim 1) : As per claim 1 , this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception and/ or Insignificant Extra Solution Activity . In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: extracting parameter groups from system modules of the industrial system which performs a simulation, adjusting the values of the parameter groups, (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Specifically, this limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. fails to recite details of how parameter groups are “extracted”.) triggering a simulation for the industrial system on the simulation platform based on a plurality of parameter groups having different values; (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.) recording performance metrics according to the values of the parameter groups after the parameter adjustment; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Adding a final step of storing (i.e. recording) data to a process that only recites mathematical concepts does not add a meaningful limitation to the process.) generating a prediction model (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.) Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole. Step 2B (Claim 1) : For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception and/or Insignificant Extra Solution Activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(d)/(f) /(g) . Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following applicable computer functions as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner ( e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i . Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory. For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Step 2A, Prong 1 (Claim 8) : The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mathematical Concepts , given the broadest reasonable interpretation. In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded . As per independent claim 8 , the claim recites the limitations of: using statistical metrics to quantify a simulation task of the industrial system so as to extract features of the simulation task; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.) training data by use of a machine learning algorithm based on the features of the simulation task, the corresponding parameter groups having different values and the performance metrics (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C), “Examples of mathematical calculations recited in a claim include: [ ] v. using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, In re Maucorps , 609 F.2d 481, 482, 203 USPQ 812, 813 (CCPA 1979)”. Step 2A, Prong 2 (Claim 8) : As per claim 8 , this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception and/or Insignificant Extra Solution Activity . In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having instructions stored therein, the instructions allowing the prediction model learning system for an industrial system to perform actions when executed by the processor; (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B.) extracting parameter groups from system modules of the industrial system which performs a simulation, adjusting the values of the parameter groups, (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Specifically, this limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. fails to recite details of how parameter groups are “extracted”.) triggering a simulation for the industrial system on the simulation platform based on a plurality of parameter groups having different values; (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.) recording performance metrics according to the values of the parameter groups after the parameter adjustment; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Adding a final step of storing (i.e. recording) data to a process that only recites mathematical concepts does not add a meaningful limitation to the process.) generating a prediction model (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.) Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole. Step 2B (Claim 8 ) : For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception and/or Insignificant Extra Solution Activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(d)/(f)/(g) . Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following applicable computer functions as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner ( e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i . Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory. For the foregoing reasons, claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Step 2A, Prong 1 (Claim 12) : The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mathematical Concepts , given the broadest reasonable interpretation. In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded . As per independent claim 12 , the claim recites the limitations of: using statistical metrics to quantify a simulation task of the industrial system so as to extract features of the simulation task; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.) training data by use of a machine learning algorithm based on the features of the simulation task, the corresponding parameter groups having different values and the performance metrics (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C), “Examples of mathematical calculations recited in a claim include: [ ] v. using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, In re Maucorps , 609 F.2d 481, 482, 203 USPQ 812, 813 (CCPA 1979)”. Step 2A, Prong 2 (Claim 12) : As per claim 12 , this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception and/or Insignificant Extra Solution Activity . In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: A non-transitory computer-readable medium, storing computer-executable instructions allowing a processor to execute a prediction model learning method for an industrial system, wherein a simulation is performed for the industrial system according to a simulation task on a platform; (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B.) extracting parameter groups from system modules of the industrial system which performs a simulation, adjusting the values of the parameter groups, (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Specifically, this limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. fails to recite details of how parameter groups are “extracted”.) triggering a simulation for the industrial system on the simulation platform based on a plurality of parameter groups having different values; (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.) recording performance metrics according to the values of the parameter groups after the parameter adjustment; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Adding a final step of storing (i.e. recording) data to a process that only recites mathematical concepts does not add a meaningful limitation to the process.) generating a prediction model (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.) Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole. Step 2B (Claim 12) : For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception and/or Insignificant Extra Solution Activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(d)/(f)/(g) . Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following applicable computer functions as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner ( e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i . Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory. For the foregoing reasons, claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Step 2A, Prong 1 (Claim 13) : The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mathematical Concepts , given the broadest reasonable interpretation. In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded . As per independent claim 13 , the claim recites the limitations of: a task feature management unit, configured to use statistical metrics to quantify a simulation task of the industrial system so as to extract features of the simulation task; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.) a training data management unit configured to train data by use of a machine learning algorithm based on the features of the simulation task, wherein the corresponding parameter groups have different values and the performance metrics; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C), “Examples of mathematical calculations recited in a claim include: [ ] v. using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, In re Maucorps , 609 F.2d 481, 482, 203 USPQ 812, 813 (CCPA 1979)”. Step 2A, Prong 2 (Claim 13) : As per claim 13 , this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception and/or Insignificant Extra Solution Activity . In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: a parameter adjustment management unit, configured to extract parameter groups from system modules of the industrial system which performs a simulation, adjust the values of the parameter groups, and trigger a simulation for the industrial system on the simulation platform based on a plurality of parameter groups having different values; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Specifically, this limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. fails to recite details of how parameter groups are “extracted”.) a performance recording unit configured to record performance metrics according to the values of the parameter groups after the parameter adjustment; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Adding a final step of storing (i.e. recording) data to a process that only recites mathematical concepts does not add a meaningful limitation to the process.) a learning management unit configured to generate a prediction model. (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.) Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole. Step 2B (Claim 13) : For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception and/or Insignificant Extra Solution Activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(d)/(f)/(g) . Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following applicable computer functions as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner ( e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i . Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory. For the foregoing reasons, claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 2 recites extracting parameter groups from system modules of the industrial system which performs a simulation, and marking adjustable parameter groups; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f).) adjusting the values of the adjustable parameter groups according to the corresponding adjustable range of each adjustable parameter group, (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f).) and triggering a simulation for the industrial system on the simulation platform based on a plurality of parameter groups having different values; (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.) and synchronizing and recording the combination and values of the parameter groups after the parameter adjustment. (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g).) Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 3 recites recording performance metrics according to the values of the parameter groups after the parameter adjustment; and recording the values of the performance metrics based on the recorded performance metrics and the simulation result which correspond to each other. The additional elements amount to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 4 , the method of claim 3, recites the performance metrics comprise key performance indexes; or the performance metrics are determined based on the customer requirements. The additional element elaborates on the recorded performance metrics therefore further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 5 recites querying the prediction model based on the features of the input simulation task and the values of the parameter groups to obtain the values of the performance metrics . The additional elements amount to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 6 , the method of claim 5, recites the industrial system comprises a context-aware robot; (The additional element amounts to Field of Use and Technological Environment per MPEP 2106.05(h), i.e. generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.) the features of the simulation task include a plurality of metrics of a red-green-blue-depth (RGBD) image; (The additional element elaborates on the queried features, therefore further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g)) and the metrics include one or more of the following: image resolution; target scale in image; and object mean. (The additional element elaborates on the obtained metrcis , therefore further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g)) Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 7 , the method of claim 6, recites the context-aware robot comprises a grasping robot; and system modules of the grasping robot include: a vision module, configured to process an input RGBD image, a path planning module, configured to figure out the path along which the manipulator moves to a grasping point according to the grasping point obtained through image recognition, and an action control module, configured to control the movement of the manipulator according to the path planned by the path planning module. The additional element elaborates on the context-aware robot, therefore further amounts to Field of Use and Technological Environment per MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Regarding claim 9 , the system of claim 8, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 2 and is rejected under similar rationale. Regarding claim 10 , the system of claim 8, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale. Regarding claim 11 , the system of claim 8, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale. Claim 14 recites wherein the parameter adjustment management unit further comprises: a parameter feature group recording subunit configured to extract parameter groups from system modules of the industrial system which performs a simulation and mark adjustable parameter groups; a parameter adjustment subunit configured to adjust the values of the adjustable parameter groups according to the corresponding adjustable range of each adjustable parameter group and trigger a simulation for the industrial system on the simulation platform based on a plurality of parameter groups having different values; and a parameter recording subunit configured to synchronize and record the combination and values of the parameter groups after the parameter adjustment. The additional element elaborates on the parameter adjustment management unit, therefore further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 15 recites wherein the performance recording unit further comprises; a performance registration sub-unit configured to record performance metrics according to the values of the parameter groups after the parameter adjustment; and a performance recording subunit configured to record the values of the performance metrics based on the recorded performance metrics and the simulation result which correspond to each other. The additional element elaborates on the performance recording unit, therefore further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 16 , the apparatus of claim 15, recites wherein the performance metrics comprise key performance indexes or are determined based on the customer requirements. The additional element elaborates on the recorded performance metrics therefore further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 17 recites wherein the learning management unit is configured to query the prediction model based on the features of the input simulation task and the values of the parameter groups to obtain the values of the performance metrics. The additional element elaborates on the learning management unit, therefore further amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham V. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . 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. Claim s 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al. US P ub No. 2019/0084151 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “ Bai ”) in view of Levine et al. US Patent No. 11173599 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “ Levine ”) . Regarding claim 1 , Bai discloses A prediction model learning method for an industrial system, wherein a simulation is performed for the industrial system according to a simulation task on a platform (“Implementations are directed to training a machine learning model that, once trained, is used in performance of robotic grasping and/or other manipulation task(s) by a robot [ ] simulated training examples can be utilized to train the model to predict an output that can be utilized in a particular task” [Abstract] , the method comprising: using statistical metrics to quantify a simulation task of the industrial system so as to extract features of the simulation task (“The loss module 133 generates the DANN [domain adversarial neural network] loss by comparing the prediction domain to an actual domain of the training example. For example, if the prediction predicted that the training example is 95% likely from the real domain, and it is from the real domain (i.e., it came from real indiscriminate training examples 149), the DANN loss can penalize the R2 loss applied to CNN [convolutional neural network] portion 136 [ ] Use of the DANN loss can encourage the CNN portion 136 to extract features that cause the domain classifier 139 to be unable to accurately predict the correct domain” Bai [P.0074] ) ; extracting parameter groups from system modules of the industrial system which performs a simulation adjusting the values of the parameter groups , and triggering a simulation for the industrial system on the simulation platform based on a plurality of parameter groups having different values (“Example robot 180A is illustrated in FIG. 1B. The same and/or similar robot can be simulated by the simulator 110 of FIG. 1B in performance of simulated grasp episodes. Robot 180A is a “robot arm” having multiple degrees of freedom to enable traversal of grasping end effector 182A along any of a plurality of potential paths to position the grasping end effector 182A in desired locations. Robot 180A further controls two opposed “claws” of grasping end effector 182A to actuate the claws between at least an open position and a closed position (and/or optionally a plurality of “partially closed” positions).” Bai [P.0053]) ; recording performance metrics according to the values of the parameter groups after the parameter adjustment (“Each grasp episode by robot 180A and/or other robots consists of T separate time steps or instances. At each time step, a current image captured by the vision component of the robot performing the grasp episode is store d, the current pose of the end effector is also store d, and the robot chooses a path (translational and/or rotational) along which to next move the gripper. At the final time step T, the robot actuates (e.g., closes) the gripper and store s additional data and/or performs one or more additional actions to enable evaluation of the success of the grasp. The indiscriminate grasp success engine 146 of system 140 evaluates the success of the grasp, generating an indiscriminate grasp success label.” Bai [P.0067]) ; and training data by use of a machine learning algorithm based on the features of the simulation task, the corresponding parameter groups having different values and the performance metrics (“Real indiscriminate training examples can be generated by the system 140 based on the real grasp episode. For a successful grasp episode, T positive real indiscriminate training examples can be generated, each represented by (I 0 , I i , p i - p T , INDL p ), where I 0 is the image captured by vision sensor at the start of the episode, I i is the captured image for a corresponding time step, p i is the pose of the end effector at the corresponding time step, p T is the pose of the end effector at the final time step (accordingly, p i - p T represents an end effector motion vector for the corresponding time step), and INDL p is a positive indiscriminate grasp success label.” Bai [P.0059]) , and generating a prediction model (“rendered image(s) and a motion vector from the simulated instance training example is applied to the CNN portion 136 and processed over the CNN portion 136 to generate output. [ ] The concatenated outputs are processed over the combined layers 138 to generate a prediction, that is an instance grasping prediction” Bai [P.0067]) . Bai fails to specifically disclose extracting parameter groups from system modules of the industrial system which performs a simulation adjusting the values of the parameter groups . However, Levine discloses extracting parameter groups from system modules of the industrial system which performs a simulation (“At block 456, the system selects a group of sequential frames of the object motion attempt. For example, the system may select the initial frame of the object motion attempt as the first instance of the group, may select an immediately next in time frame as the second instance of the group, select the immediately next in time frame as the third instance of the group, etc.” Levine [ Col.15 Ln.60 ]) , adjusting the values of the parameter groups (“ At block 458, the system assigns the sequential frames as a training example. As described, the sequential frames can each include an image at a corresponding time step, a robot state at the corresponding time step, and an action for the corresponding time step. In some implementations, at block 45