DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Status Claims 1-7 are pending and under examination herein. Claims 1-7 are rejected. Priority The instant application is a National Stage entry of PCT/ JP2021 /017180 , International Filing Date: 04/30/2021, which claims the benefit of foreign priority to JP 2020-092110, filed 05/27/2020. A s such, the effective filing date assigned to each of claims 1- 7 is 05/27/2020 . Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statements filed 02/13/2023 and 05/02/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have therefore been considered. A signed copy of the IDS is included with this Office Action. Drawings The drawings filed 11/23/2022 are accepted by the examiner. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the length exceeds 150 words . A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives. Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts. Claim Interpretation The instant specification discloses recognizing as an example of perceiving in para 004. Merriam-Webster also defines recognize as “ to perceive to be something or someone previously known ”. The instant specification further defines recalling as “ bringing to mind or remembering ” in para 0086. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, for the purposes of examination, something that is recalled would also be recognized, as recalling would require perceiving/recognizing. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: In claim 1: a model storage unit that stores a mode l built by machine learning a brain activity acquisition unit that acquires a signal indicating a brain activity of a second subject presented with the predetermined sound a signal source estimation unit that estimates, based on a mode of the signal indicating the brain activity acquired by the brain activity acquisition unit, a signal source of the signal indicating the brain activity, from among a plurality of regions in a brain of the second subject a recognized sound acquisition unit that inputs the information relating to the signal source estimated by the signal source estimation unit to the model and acquires information, output from the model, on a recognized sound estimated to be recognized by the second subject In claim 2: a playback unit that plays back the sound indicated by the information on the recognized sound acquired by the recognized sound acquisition unit In claim 3: an intra-brain information generation unit, wherein the model, to which the information relating to the signal source is input, records information on an impact of each of the plurality of regions in the brain of the second subject on the recognized sound In claim 4 an image generation unit that generates an image indicating a waveform of the predetermined sound and a waveform of the recognized sound In claim 5: a model storage unit that stores a model built by machine learning a brain activity acquisition unit that acquires a signal indicating a brain activity of a second subject recalling an arbitrary sound a signal source estimation unit that estimates, based on a mode of the signal indicating the brain activity acquired by the brain activity acquisition unit, a signal source of the signal indicating the brain activity, from among a plurality of regions in a brain of the second subject a sound acquisition unit that inputs the information relating to the signal source estimated by the signal source estimation unit to the model and acquires information, output from the model, on a sound estimated to be recalled by the second subject Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The instant specification discloses these units are implemented in hardware such as elements or mechanical devices such as a CPU and a memory of a computer, and in software such as a computer program (para 0024-0025; para 0042-0044; para 0050) . If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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- 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea/law of nature/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). For example, i n the instant application, the claims recite the following limitations that equate to an abstract idea: Claim 1 and 6 recite estimating, based on a mode of the signal indicating the brain activity acquired, a signal source of the signal indicating the brain activity, from among a plurality of regions in a brain of the second subject ; inputting the information relating to the signal source estimated to the model and acquiring information, output from the model, on a recognized sound estimated to be recognized by the second subject Claims 5 and 7 recite estimating, based on a mode of the signal indicating the brain activity acquired, a signal source of the signal indicating the brain activity, from among a plurality of regions in a brain of the second subject; and inputting the information relating to the signal source estimated to the model and acquiring information, output from the model, on a sound estimated to be recalled by the second subj ect. These recitations equate to steps of collecting information, analyzing data and making observations, evaluations and judgements that can be carried out in the human mind. Specifically, estimating a signal source based on the mode of the signal, and inputting data into the model and acquiring a an output on a sound to be recognized/recalled can be practically performing the human mind as claimed, as the instant specification discloses an example of the machine learning model can be any publicly known machine learning scheme in para 0038 and therefore could be as simple as a linear regression, and are similar to the concepts of collecting and comparing known information in Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC , 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and collecting information, analyzing it, and reporting certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, each of the above recited limitations fall under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the steps of imputing data into the model and receiving an estimate could also equate to organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations and reciting a mathematical equation, similar to the concepts of taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. , 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Therefore, these limitations fall under the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 3 further qualify the judicial exceptions. As such, claims 1-7 recite 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). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite an additional element that reflects an improvement to technology, applies or uses the recited judicial exception to affect a particular treatment for a condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Rather, the instant claims recite additional elements that amount to mere data gathering and outputting and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. Specifically, the claims recite the following additional elements : Claim s 1 and 5 -7 recite a model storage unit that stores a model built by machine learning, using, as training data, information on a predetermined sound and information relating to a signal source of a signal indicating a brain activity of a first subject presented with the predetermined sound, the model outputting, based on input information relating to a signal source of a signal indicating a brain activity of a subject, information on a sound estimated to be recognized by the subject, the information processing apparatus comprising: a brain activity acquisition unit that acquires a signal indicating a brain activity of a second subject presented with the predetermined sound; a signal source estimation uni t . Claims 5 and 7 also recite a sound acquisition unit . Claims 6 and 7 also recite a computer. Claim 2 recites a playback unit that plays back the sound indicated by the information on the recognized sound acquired by the recognized sound acquisition unit. Claim 3 recites an intra-brain information generation unit, wherein the model, to which the information relating to the signal source is input, records information on an impact of each of the plurality of regions in the brain of the second subject on the recognized sound . Claim 4 recites an image generation unit that generates an image indicating a waveform of the predetermined sound and a waveform of the recognized sound. Claim 1 ,3, 5 and 6-7 recites limitations of how data is obtained. These limitations equate to mere data gathering activity to obtain the data necessary for the mental evaluations and judgements (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claims 2 and 4 recite limitations for outputting data that the courts consider to be an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Furthermore, as discussed in the C laim Interpretation section above, the claims also recite using a generic computing systems and computer program products to carry out instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The computer system and computer program product as claimed fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished and only recites the idea of a solution or outcome. There are no limitations that indicate that the claimed steps require anything other than generic computing systems. As such, these limitations equate to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer that the courts have stated does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp. , 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. Furthermore, the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks ( e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea ( e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). There is no indication that any of these additional elements provide a practical application of the recited judicial exception outside of the judicial exception itself. As such, claims 1- 7 are 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 ). Further analyzing the additional elements under step 2B , the additional elements as described above do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As set forth in the MPEP, determinations of whether or not additional elements (or a combination of additional elements) may provide significantly more and/or an inventive concept rests in whether or not the additional elements (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Said assessment is made by a factual determination stemming from a conclusion that an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry, which is determined by either a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s) ; a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s) . With respect to the instant claims under the 2B analysis, the instant specification discloses there are publicly known software and processes that can provide the functions of the a sound acquisition unit and playback unit (para 0030; para 0051). Furthermore, the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks ( e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea ( e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Therefore, 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, and the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself ( Step 2B : NO ). As such, claims 1- 7 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim s 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto ( JP2012155559A ) . With respect to claim s 1, and 5-7 , Matsumoto discloses a speech support device that reads biological signals and recognizes the language that the user intends to speak based on the read biological signals (para 1) . Matsumoto discloses the speech support device comprises a language information storage means (language model) that compares the analyzed signal with the feature signals of each word to calculate the certainty of detected words, which is the degree of agreement between the analyzed signal and the feature signals of each word, has undergone noise reduction, interference reduction, and waveform shaping processing, and quality information that has calculated the likelihood of a word sequence and outputs the detected word sequence to an output uni t (para 0013). Matsumoto further discloses th e characteristic information for each word refers to the characteristics of the signals generated when recalling or attempting to utter each word , indicating the detection method includes presenting the subject with a word and the characteristics detected include brain activity related to recognition and recall (para 0019) . Matsumoto discloses the speech support device compris es an acquisition means for acquiring information representing the brain activity of a person being supported, an output means for outputting a post-detection word sequence determined based on the analysis signal acquired by the acquisition mean s, and a quality information acquisition means that acquires biosignals generated by the brain activity of the person being supported, performs noise reduction, interference reduction, and waveform shaping on the analyzed signal, outputs it to an adaptive learning word candidate detection means, calculates noise power, and outputs quality information representing the state of the biosignals to the adaptive language comparison detection mean (claim 1; claim 6). Matsumoto further discloses an interpolation means that sets the likelihood of the detected word for words other than the word candidate based on the value of the quality information and outputs the likelihood of the detected word for all words to an adaptive language comparison detection means and an adaptive language comparison detection means that outputs the detected word sequence (i.e. outputs information on the word estimated to be recognized/recalled) (claims 7). However, Matsumoto does not disclose presenting the subjects with a sound, but does disclose that the characteristics of the signals generated when recalling or attempting to utter each word , indicating that the words were presented to the subject in some way to generate the signals (para 0019) Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the methods of Matsumoto to detect recognition and recall associated with a presented sound, the words used to determine the signals related to recall could be have been audio, and the detection of recognition/recall of the presented word would be a part of Matsumoto’s process of detecting the word. Therefore, the invention is prima facie obvious . With respect to claim 2, Matsumoto discloses t he output unit is an output device such as a speaker, display unit, network connector (e.g., a computer), or wireless transmitter, which outputs the word sequence after detection (para 0019l para 0022) . With respect to claims 3-4, Matsumoto discloses The waveform shaping unit 2 performs noise reduction, interference reduction, and waveform shaping processing on the detected biological signal and outputs the analyzed signal to the word detection unit , and w aveform shaping processes include methods that use spatial or spatiotemporal filtering to extract speech-related signals using location information of brain activity areas related to speech (such as Broca's area, Wernicke's area, motor cortex, and cerebellum), as well as feature analysis using canonical correlation analysis and eigenvalue analysis (para 0021) . Conclusion No claims allowed. Inquires Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NIDHI DHARITHREESAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5486 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Larry D Riggs II can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /N.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 1686 /Karlheinz R. Skowronek/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1687