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. Priority Applicant claim s the benefit of prior-filed Japanese Patent Application No.2022-136527, filed on August 30, 2022, which is acknowledged. Drawings The drawings were received on 02/09/2023 . These drawings are acceptable. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) , submitted 02/09/2023, ha s been considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, the term “regression labels” is not considered a term of art. It is not clear it the term refers to labels of a variable data set or labels associated with a regression model in an ensemble or a set of models (e.g. model id number/name) or something else entirely. The examiner notes any regression model data as within the scope of the claim limitation. Regarding claims 18 and 19, the limitations are similar to claim 1 and thus rejection under the same rationale. The claims that depend on claim 1 fail to cure the noted deficiency and in some cases also use the problematic term; and are rejected under the same rationale. Regarding claim 6 recites the limitation “the first generated data includes a first generated matrix with (Ns+N1) rows and (3xD1) columns and a first generated label with (Ns+N1) rows, the first generated matrix includes first matrix data, second matrix data, and third matrix data, components of the first matrix data include combination in a row direction of the first feature value matrix and the first sample feature value matrix, components of the second matrix data include combination in the row direction of a matrix of 0 components with Ns rows and D1 columns , and the first sample feature value matrix, components of the third matrix data include combination in the row direction of the first sample feature value matrix and a matrix of 0 components with N1 rows and D1 columns , a nd components of the first generated label include combination in the row direction of the first sample label and the first acquired label” appear to claim a combination process using 0 components. It is unclear how a combination of the claimed rows and columns, which can be considered components of a matrix or the claimed data are considered 0 components. Does this mean there are other components that need to be considered and what are the claimed components referring to in producing a combination of components from 0 components as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would unable to ascertain the intended scope of the claimed invention. Claim 8, is recited in a similar fashion and thus rejected under the same rationale. Claim 7 depends from claim 6, and does not appear to resolve the noted issue in claim 6 above; thus the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated and claim 7 is appropriately rejected. Regarding claim 10, the limitation recites the limitation “wherein the first evaluation index corresponds to an average of a distribution of a half-width of a histogram of differences between one of the plurality of first regression labels and one of the plurality of first synthetic regression labels” that renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what measurement is being made is it an average of a distribution or a frequency position in an histogram of data? How is a half width of an histogram difference computed? What statistical operations are involved and in what order? Is this just a standard deviation measurement? One of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the intended scope of the claim limitation. 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. Regarding claims 1-1 8 , the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to a system that includes software per se and/or possibly signal per se. Specifically , in independent claims 11 and 18 , the claimed memories elements , the acquisitor s and processor s, may be considered signals per se or software components. In addition the claimed processors can be broadly interpreted as software. It is unclear what statutory category the claims belongs as there is insufficient structure, the claim appears to couple elements include nonstructural properties (eg. Signals per se or software/computer instructions) and is thus broadly considered signal per se, see MPEP 2106.03. Alternatively, the process can be considered a software application for executing instructions and thus directing the claims to software per se. In any, case as recited the claims are not clearly drawn to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. The applicant can amend claims to include elements such as non-transitory memory/storage media as part of the claimed device and system claims in the independent claims. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? No; but can be amended to fall within a statutory category . Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. … perform a first evaluation index derivation operation deriving a first evaluation index from a plurality of first regression labels and a plurality of first synthetic regression labels, the plurality of first regression labels being derived from a plurality of first machine learning models, the plurality of first machine learning models being derived from a plurality of first sample data, the plurality of first synthetic regression labels being derived from a plurality of first synthetic machine learning models, the plurality of first synthetic machine learning models being derived from the plurality of first sample data and the first acquire data by a first transfer leaning , and the plurality of first sample data being derived from the first other data, or a first conversion other data obtained by converting the first other data . (Considered directed to a Mental Process: Making evaluations and judgements of observations for formulating observations, evaluations and judgements as claimed; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). an acquisitor; and a processor, the acquisitor being configured to acquire … , the processor being configured to … ( Deemed i nsufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merel y include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) . ) …acquire a first acquired data and a first other data… (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity, e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network) the plurality of first regression labels being derived from a plurality of first machine learning models, the plurality of first machine learning models being derived from a plurality of first sample data, the plurality of first synthetic regression labels being derived from a plurality of first synthetic machine learning models, the plurality of first synthetic machine learning models being derived from the plurality of first sample data and the first acquire data by a first transfer leaning, … ( Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). ) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception; and that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment and directed to invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception. Secondly, the limitations directed to insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity for as noted above. The courts have deemed these types of activity as well-known routine and convectional, see evidences noted below: 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); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result ‐‐ a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 2 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? No; but can be amended to fall within a statutory category. Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea recited from claim 1. Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein the processor is configured to derive the plurality of first sample data from the first other data or the first conversion other data by bootstrap sampling. ( Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). ) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception; and that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment and directed to invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 3 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? No; but can be amended to fall within a statutory category. Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea recited from claim 1. Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein the first acquired data includes a first feature value matrix with N1 rows and D1 columns, and a first acquired label with N1 rows, the first other data includes a first other feature value matrix with Np rows and D1 columns, and a first other label with Np rows, the N1 is an integer of 2 or more, the Np is an integer of 2 or more, the D1 is an integer of 1 or more, and the N1 is smaller than the Np. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 4 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? No; but can be amended to fall within a statutory category. Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea recited from claim 3. Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein one of the plurality of first sample data includes a first sample feature value matrix with Ns rows and D1 columns, and a first sample label with Ns rows, the Ns is an integer of 2 or more, and the Ns is smaller than the Np. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 5 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? No; but can be amended to fall within a statutory category. Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea recited from claim 4. Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein a change of frequency of the first conversion other data with respect to the first feature value matrix is smaller than a change of frequency of the first acquired data with respect to the first feature value matrix. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 6 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? No; but can be amended to fall within a statutory category. Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea from claim 4. Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein the processor is configured to perform a first synthetic machine learning model derivation operation deriving the plurality of first synthetic machine leaning models, in the first synthetic machine learning model derivation operation, the processor is configured to generate one of the plurality of first synthetic machine learning models based on a first generated data based on the first acquired data and one of the plurality of first sample data, ( Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). ) the first generated data includes a first generated matrix with (Ns+N1) rows and (3xD1) columns and a first generated label with (Ns+N1) rows, the first generated matrix includes first matrix data, second matrix data, and third matrix data, components of the first matrix data include combination in a row direction of the first feature value matrix and the first sample feature value matrix, components of the second matrix data include combination in the row direction of a matrix of 0 components with Ns rows and D1 columns, and the first sample feature value matrix, components of the third matrix data include combination in the row direction of the first sample feature value matrix and a matrix of 0 components with N1 rows and D1 columns, and components of the first generated label include combination in the row direction of the first sample label and the first acquired label. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception; and that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment and directed to invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 7 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? No; but can be amended to fall within a statutory category. Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea recited from claim 6. Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Claim 8 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? No; but can be amended to fall within a statutory category. Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea from claim 6. Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein the processor, in the first synthetic machine learning model derivation operation, is configured to derive one of the plurality of first synthetic regression labels by inputting one of the plurality of first synthetic regression matrix into one of the plurality of first synthetic machine learning models, ( Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). ) the one of the plurality of first synthetic regression matrix is with N1 rows and (3xD1) columns, the one of the plurality of first synthetic regression matrix includes first synthetic regression matrix data and second synthetic regression matrix data, and third synthetic regression matrix data, components of the first synthetic regression matrix data include the first feature value matrix, components of the second synthetic regression matrix data include the first feature value matrix, and components of the third synthetic regression matrix data include a matrix of 0 components with N1 rows and D1 columns. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception; and that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment and directed to invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 9 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? No; but can be amended to fall within a statutory category. Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. wherein the first evaluation index corresponds to an average of a distribution of differences between one of the plurality of first regression labels and one of the plurality of first synthetic regression labels. (Considered directed to a Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I)) Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 10 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? No; but can be amended to fall within a statutory category. Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. wherein the first evaluation index corresponds to an average of a distribution of a half-width of a histogram of differences between one of the plurality of first regression labels and one of the plurality of first synthetic regression labels. (Considered directed to a 1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I)) Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 11 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? No; but can be amended to fall within a statutory category. Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. wherein the processor is configured to further derive an error index based on the first evaluation index. (Considered directed to a Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I)) Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein the processor is configured to further derive … ( Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). ) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception; and that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment and directed to invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 12 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? No; but can be amended to fall within a statutory category. Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea from claim 1. Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). further comprising: a memory, the memory being configured to store.… ( Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). ) … store at least one of the first acquired data, the first other data or the first evaluation index. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity, e.g. Storing and retrieving information in memory) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception; and that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment and directed to invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception. Secondly, the limitations directed to insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity for as noted above. The courts have deemed these types of activity as well-known routine and convectional, see evidences noted below: 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; These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 13 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? No; but can be amended to fall within a statutory category. Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea from claim 12. Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein the memory is configured to store.… ( Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). ) … store at least one of the plurality of first regression labels, the plurality of first synthetic regression labels, the plurality of first machine learning models, the plurality of first sample data, the plurality of first synthetic machine learning models or the first conversion other data. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity, e.g. Storing and retrieving information in memory) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception; and that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment and directed to invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception. Secondly, the limitations directed to insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity for as noted above. The courts have deemed these types of activity as well-known routine and convectional, see evidences noted below: 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; These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 14 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? No; but can be amended to fall within a statutory category. Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. wherein the acquisitor is configured to further acquire a second other data, the processor is configured to perform a second evaluation index derivation operation deriving a second evaluation index from a plurality of second regression labels and a plurality of second synthetic regression labels, the plurality of second regression labels are derived from a plurality of second machine learning models, the plurality of second machine learning models are derived from a plurality of second sample data, the plurality of second synthetic regression labels are derived from a plurality of second synthetic machine learning models, the plurality of second synthetic machine learning models are derived from the plurality of second sample data and the first acquired data by a second transfer learning , and the plurality of second sample data are derived from the second other data, or a second conversion other data obtained by converting the second other data. (Considered directed to a Mental Process: Making evaluations and judgements of observations for formulating observations, evaluations and judgements as claimed; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein the acquisitor is configured to further acquire a second other data , the processor is configured to perform … ( Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). ) wherein the acquisitor is configured to further acquire a second other data, … (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity, e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network) … the plurality of second regression labels are derived from a plurality of second machine learning models, the plurality of second machine learning models are derived from a plurality of second sample data, the plurality of second synthetic regression labels are derived from a plurality of second synthetic machine learning models, the plurality of second synthetic machine learning models are derived from the plurality of second sample data and the first acquired data by a second transfer learning … ( Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). ) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception; and that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment and directed to invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception. Secondly, the limitations directed to insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity for as noted above. The courts have deemed these types of activity as well-known routine and convectional, see evidences noted below: 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); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d