CTNF 18/229,725 CTNF 94181 DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 03 August 2023 for application 18/229,725 filed 03 August 2023. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim (s) 13 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13, line 2, DSP algorithm should read “digital signal processing (DSP) algorithm” Claim 13, line 2, MFE should read “Mel-filterbank energy (MFE)” Claim 13, line 2, MFCC should read “Mel frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCC)” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea, and because the claim elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al. , 573 US 208 (2014). Regarding claim 1 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The limitation of extracting a plurality of features from the dataset, the plurality of features configured to train a neural network model to generate one or more classifications , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of generating an anomaly score based on the plurality of features , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element(s) – embedded device, sensor . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)). The claim recites additional element(s) – neural network model . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim recites triggering an output based on the anomaly score exceeding a range which is simply applying computer components recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim recites receiving, by an embedded device, a dataset from a sensor , which is simply receiving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: embedded device, sensor amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) applying computer components amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) receiving data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d)) neural network model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 2 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 2 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of collecting a plurality of datasets from the sensor; and training a neural network, based on the plurality of datasets, to generate the anomaly score . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element(s) – neural network . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim recites training a neural network, based on the plurality of datasets, to generate the anomaly score which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of anomaly identification and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim recites collecting a plurality of datasets from the sensor , which is simply receiving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) receiving data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d)) neural network amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 3 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 3 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein extracting the plurality of features comprises: utilizing a pretrained network architecture that implements a neural network . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites wherein extracting the plurality of features comprises: utilizing a pretrained network architecture that implements a neural network which is simply additional information regarding the model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The claim recites additional element(s) – pretrained network architecture, neural network . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: pretrained network architecture, neural network amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 4 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 4 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein extracting the plurality of features comprises: utilizing a digital signal processing (DSP) algorithm based on at least one of Mel-filterbank energy (MFE), Mel frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCC), or spectrogram . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites wherein extracting the plurality of features comprises: utilizing a digital signal processing (DSP) algorithm based on at least one of Mel-filterbank energy (MFE), Mel frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCC), or spectrogram which is simply additional information regarding the model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The claim recites additional element(s) – digital signal processing (DSP) algorithm, Mel-filterbank energy (MFE), Mel frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCC), spectrogram . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: digital signal processing (DSP) algorithm, Mel-filterbank energy (MFE), Mel frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCC), spectrogram amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 5 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 5 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of utilizing a Gaussian mixture model (GMM) to determine that the anomaly score exceeds the range . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites utilizing a Gaussian mixture model (GMM) to determine that the anomaly score exceeds the range which is simply additional information regarding the model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The claim recites additional element(s) – Gaussian mixture model (GMM) . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: Gaussian mixture model (GMM) amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 6 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The limitation of determining cells associated with the dataset , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of generating a plurality of anomaly scores based on the plurality of features, wherein an anomaly score of the plurality of anomaly scores corresponds to a cell of the cells , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 7 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 7 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the dataset from the sensor comprises an image from a camera and a pattern indicated by the image causes the anomaly score to exceed the range . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites wherein the dataset from the sensor comprises an image from a camera and a pattern indicated by the image causes the anomaly score to exceed the range which is simply additional information regarding the data, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The claim recites additional element(s) – camera . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: camera amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 8 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 8 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the dataset from the sensor comprises audio data from a microphone and a sound indicated by the audio data causes the anomaly score to exceed the range . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites wherein the dataset from the sensor comprises audio data from a microphone and a sound indicated by the audio data causes the anomaly score to exceed the range which is simply additional information regarding the data, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The claim recites additional element(s) – microphone . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: microphone amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 9 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 9 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the dataset from the sensor comprises motion data from an inertial management unit (IMU) sensor and a vibration indicated by the motion data causes the anomaly score to exceed the range . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites wherein the dataset from the sensor comprises motion data from an inertial management unit (IMU) sensor and a vibration indicated by the motion data causes the anomaly score to exceed the range which is simply additional information regarding the data, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The claim recites additional element(s) – inertial management unit (IMU) sensor . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: inertial management unit (IMU) sensor amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 10 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The limitation of configuring an anomaly detection system for an embedded device ... , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of extracting a plurality of features from the dataset, the plurality of features configured to train a neural network model to generate one or more classifications , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of generating an anomaly score based on the plurality of features , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element(s) – anomaly detection system, embedded device, sensor . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)). The claim recites additional element(s) – neural network model . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim recites triggering an output based on the anomaly score exceeding a range which is simply applying computer components recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim recites receiving, by the embedded device, a dataset from a sensor , which is simply receiving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: anomaly detection system, embedded device, sensor amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) applying computer components amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) receiving data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d)) neural network model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 11 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 10 is applicable here since claim 11 carries out the method of claim 10 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of configuring the anomaly detection system to train a neural network, based on a plurality of datasets collected from the sensor, to generate the anomaly score . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element(s) – neural network . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim recites configuring the anomaly detection system to train a neural network, based on a plurality of datasets collected from the sensor, to generate the anomaly score which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of anomaly identification and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) neural network amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 12 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 10 is applicable here since claim 12 carries out the method of claim 10 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of configuring the anomaly detection system to utilize a pretrained network architecture that implements a neural network . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites configuring the anomaly detection system to utilize a pretrained network architecture that implements a neural network which is simply additional information regarding the model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The claim recites additional element(s) – pretrained network architecture, neural network . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: pretrained network architecture, neural network amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 13 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 10 is applicable here since claim 13 carries out the method of claim 10 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein extracting the plurality of features comprises utilizing a DSP algorithm based on at least one of MFE, MFCC, or spectrogram . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites wherein extracting the plurality of features comprises utilizing a DSP algorithm based on at least one of MFE, MFCC, or spectrogram which is simply additional information regarding the model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The claim recites additional element(s) – DSP algorithm, MFE, MFCC, spectrogram . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: DSP algorithm, MFE, MFCC, spectrogram amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 14 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 10 is applicable here since claim 14 carries out the method of claim 10 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of configuring the anomaly detection system to utilize a statistical distribution to determine that the anomaly score corresponds to anomalous data . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites configuring the anomaly detection system to utilize a statistical distribution to determine that the anomaly score corresponds to anomalous data which is simply additional information regarding the model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The claim recites additional element(s) – statistical distribution . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: statistical distribution amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 15 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The limitation of configuring the anomaly detection system to determine cells associated with the dataset, the cells arranged in a grid , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of generate a plurality of anomaly scores based on the plurality of features, wherein an anomaly score of the plurality of anomaly scores corresponds to a cell in the grid , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 16 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to an embedded device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) embedded device. The limitation of extract a plurality of features from the dataset, the plurality of features configured to train a neural network model to generate one or more classifications , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of generate an anomaly score based on the plurality of features , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element(s) – embedded device, sensor, memory, processor, instructions . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)). The claim recites additional element(s) – neural network model . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim recites trigger an output based on the anomaly score exceeding a range which is simply applying computer components recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim recites receive a dataset from the sensor , which is simply receiving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: embedded device, sensor, memory, processor, instructions amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) applying computer components amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) receiving data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d)) neural network model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 17 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to an embedded device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) embedded device. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 16 is applicable here since claim 17 carries out the embedded device of claim 16 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of collect a plurality of datasets from the sensor; and train a neural network, based on the plurality of datasets, to generate the anomaly score . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element(s) – neural network . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim recites train a neural network, based on the plurality of datasets, to generate the anomaly score which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of anomaly identification and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim recites collect a plurality of datasets from the sensor , which is simply receiving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) receiving data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d)) neural network amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 18 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to an embedded device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) embedded device. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 16 is applicable here since claim 18 carries out the embedded device of claim 16 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of utilize a pretrained network architecture that implements a neural network . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites utilize a pretrained network architecture that implements a neural network which is simply additional information regarding the model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The claim recites additional element(s) – pretrained network architecture, neural network . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial except