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. The following is a non-final, first office action on the merits, in response to application filed 10/ 1 1/2022 . Claims 1-10 have been examined and are currently pending. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/11/2022 follows the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Priority The Applicant claims benefit of PCT / JP2020/016916 filed on 4/1 7 /2020 Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Specification Modifications made to page 1 to put 371 international application, PCT/JP2020/016916, filed on April 17, 2020, to the original specification are acknowledged. 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- 10 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. The claimed invention (Claims 1 -10 ) is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract idea including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, “Mental Process” , which has been identified/found by the courts as abstract ideas in MPEP 2106.04(a). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it/they is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications: Independent claims 1, 9, 1 0 (Step 2A, Prong One) : are directed to abstract of “Mental Process”. For example, Independent Claim 9 , limitations classifying at least one piece of living-body information data into at least one group based on an attribute of at least one user, the at least one piece of living-body information data including a sensor value relating to a living body of the user, and a measurement time and a measurement position of the sensor value; and generating, for each of the group, a model for estimating interpolation data for interpolating a deficit of the living-body information data using a correlation among the sensor value included in the living-body information data, the measurement time, and the measurement position. The limitation s under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Mental Processes related to observation and evaluation, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a processor and memory). For example, classifying data , generating data, by paper and pencil/perform in h uman mind. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Mental Processes. Independent Claims 1, 9, 1 0 , Step 2A Prong two: As to the additional elements computer , memories, processors , and storage medium, they are interpreted as drawn to a generic computer for classifying data and generating data and are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception ( 2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO) . Independent Claims 1, 9, 1 0 , Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the computer , memories, processors , and storage medium are recited at a high level of generality and as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The use of a computer to implement the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. See MPEP 2106.05(b): “It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial , Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014)”; also see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE , Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Performing repetitive calculations, Flook , 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”. Thus taken alone, the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of additional elements improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (emphasis added). Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO) . Dependent claims 2 -8 , are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 1 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 2 -8 , are also non-statutory subject matter. Viewed as a whole, the claims (1- 10 ) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claims do NOT recite limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thus, the claimed invention, as a whole, does not provide 'significantly more' than the abstract idea, and is non-statutory subject matter. Allowable Subject Matte r As to the prior art rejections, upon further search and consideration, it is found that claim 1- 10 is allowable subject to outstanding Alice 101 rejections. Independent claims 1, 9, 1 0 as a whole recites a combination of limitations that has Not been found as define over prior art of record {the combination of Kuriyama et al. (US 2008/0208480), Tran et al. (US Patent 10,998,101), Stivoric et al. (US 2012/0149996), Grouchy et al. (US 2019/0200893), Wolniewicz (US 2018/0322945), Wolniewicz (US 20220101969 0, which was directed towards the entirety of the claimed subject matter and was the best reference known to one of ordinary skill in the art to address the instant claims , and NPL1-- G. Chetty and M. White, "Body sensor networks for human activity recognition," 2016 3rd International Conference on Signal Processing and Integrated Networks (SPIN), Noida, India, 2016, pp. 660-665, doi : 10.1109/SPIN.2016.7566779. (Year: 2016) NPL2-- Y. Sakurai, K. Takada, T. Kawabe and S. Tsuruta, "Biological Sensor Fusion Using Sensor Reliability Evaluation for Situation Assesment ," 2010 Sixth International Conference on Signal-Image Technology and Internet Based Systems, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2010, pp. 107-113, doi : 10.1109/SITIS.2010.28. (Year: 2010) NPL3-- Sang VNT, Yano S, Kondo T. On-Body Sensor Positions Hierarchical Classification. Sensors (Basel). 2018 Oct 24;18(11):3612. doi : 10.3390/s18113612. PMID: 30356012; PMCID: PMC6263469. (Year: 2018) , and the other references teaches all the claimed features. However, independent claims 1, 9, 1 0 and their dependency are rejected under Alice 101 above. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with, and pending remedy to outstanding issues cited above. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Brue et al. (US 2021/0307701, 2021 / 0313068 ), teaches analyzing outcomes of illnesses, on living organisms. More particularly, using machine learning model, identifying risk of illness based on genetic markers and other available data, predicting results of mass exposure to an Illness based on a populations genomes and other available data, and providing indicators and methods of visualization for probability of illness in any living organism. Desai (US 2012/0239432) teaches managing and storing personal/family/close-ones private medical and health information on a secure personal computer and enables electronic exchange to those entered manually and saved in the system. The system stores the information securely and restricts users to authorized information. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN M LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5489. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30am--5pm. Fax is 571-270-6489. 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, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached on 571-272-6702. 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. /SUN M LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685