DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This non-final office action is in response to the application filed 18 August 2023. Claims 1-13 are pending. Claims 1, 2, and 13 are independent claims. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 18 August 2023 and 16 October 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Drawings The examiner accepts the drawings filed 18 August 2023. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 4, 7, and 10 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. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the model parameter values" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 4 depends upon independent claim 2 that references “learned model parameter values (line 4)” and “input model parameter values (line 6).” It is unclear whether “the model parameter values” of claim 4 are intended to reference the “learned model parameter values” or the “input model parameter values.” Claim 7 recites the limitation "the model parameter values" in line s 3 and 7 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 7 depends upon independent claim 2 that references “learned model parameter values (line 4)” and “input model parameter values (line 6).” It is unclear whether “the model parameter values” of claim 4 are intended to reference the “learned model parameter values” or the “input model parameter values.” Claim 10 recites the limitation "the model parameter values" in lines 2-3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 10 depends upon independent claim 2 that references “learned model parameter values (line 4)” and “input model parameter values (line 6).” It is unclear whether “the model parameter values” of claim 4 are intended to reference the “learned model parameter values” or the “input model parameter values.” Claim 10 recites the limitation "the change" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. With respect to independent claim 13, the claim recites a “computer program.” A computer program fails to define a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. For this reason, the claim is non-statutory. The examine recommends amending the claim to recite, “A computer program product , comprising commands stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium…” Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1; MPEP 2106.03). If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed toward a judicial exception (Step 2A; MPEP 2106.04). This step is broken into two prongs. The first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1) determines whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined at Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2; MPEP 2106.04). The second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2) determines whether the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claim is a patent-eligible exception (Step 2B; MPEP 2106.05). If an abstract idea is present int the claim, in order to recite statutory subject matter, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see: 2019 PEG ). Step 1: According to Step 1 of the two Step analysis, claim 1 is are directed toward a system (machine). Claims 2-12 are directed toward a method (process). Therefore, each of these claims falls within one of the four statutory categories. According to Step 1 of the two Step analysis, claim 13 is directed toward a computer program. A computer program fails to define a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. For the purpose of examination under Step 2A, Prong 1; Step 2A, Prong 2; and Step 2B, the examiner will treat claim 13 as though it recites a computer program product (manufacture). Claim 1 : Step 2A, Prong 1: Following the determination that the claims fall within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1). In this instance, the claims are determined to recite a judicial exception (abstract idea; mental process). With respect to claim 1, the claim recite s : testing a quality of the image processing model… to make a quality statement on a quality of the image processing model from learned model parameter values of the image processing model (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation of the quality of a trained image processing model based upon testing) Step 2A, Prong 2: Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claims disclose the following additional elements: a microscope for image capture a computing device that is configured a…program… wherein the… program is configured These additional claim elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims disclose the following additional elements: train, using training data, an image processing model to calculate an image processing result from at least one microscope image In this instance, training is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). The claims disclose the following additional elements: a microscope for image capture a computing device that is configured a…program… wherein the… program is configured These additional claim elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims disclose the following additional elements: train, using training data, an image processing model to calculate an image processing result from at least one microscope image In this instance, training is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 2 : Step 2A, Prong 1: Following the determination that the claims fall within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1). In this instance, the claims are determined to recite a judicial exception (abstract idea; mental process). With respect to claim 2, the claim recite s : testing a quality of a… model configured to calculate an image processing result from at least one microscope image (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation of the quality of a trained image processing model based upon testing) inputting learned model parameter values of the image processing model… to make a quality statement on a quality of the image processing model from input model parameter values (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation of the quality of a trained image processing model based upon testing) calculate a quality statement regarding a quality of the image processing model based on the learned model parameter values (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation to calculate a quality statement) Step 2A, Prong 2: Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claims disclose the following additional elements: A computer-implemented method a quality testing program using the quality testing program These additional claim elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims disclose the following additional elements: a machine-learned image processing model In this instance, training is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). The claims disclose the following additional elements: A computer-implemented method a quality testing program using the quality testing program These additional claim elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims disclose the following additional elements: a machine-learned image processing model In this instance, training is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 3 : With respect to dependent claim 3, the claim depends upon independent claim 2. The analysis of claim 2 is incorporated herein by reference. Step 2A, Prong 1: With respect to claim 3, the claim recites: wherein for the calculation of the quality statement of a quality measure is derived from the learned model parameter values and compared with reference values (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation by comparing the learned model parameter values with reference values to calculate the quality measure) Claim 4 : With respect to dependent claim 4, the claim depends upon independent claim 2. The analysis of claim 2 is incorporated herein by reference. Step 2A, Prong 1: With respect to claim 4, the claim recites: wherein the quality testing… makes the quality statement based on evaluation criteria relating to the model parameter values, wherein the evaluation criteria relate to one or more of the following: a randomness or entropy of a group of model parameter values a similarity of a group of model parameter values to known or expected distributions an energy filter weights of a convolutional layer a presence of inactive filter masks in the image processing model with model parameter values that lie exclusively below a predetermined threshold an invariability of model parameter values of activation functions over a plurality of training steps a presence of structures in groups of model parameter values a memorization of specific structures of training data in filter masks of the image processing model a color distribution in filter masks of the image processing model (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation by comparing the learned model parameter values with various criteria to calculate the quality measure) Step 2A, Prong 2: Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claims disclose the following additional elements: a quality testing program These additional claim elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). The claims disclose the following additional elements: a quality testing program These additional claim elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 5 : With respect to dependent claim 5, the claim depends upon dependent claim 4. The analysis of claim 4 is incorporated herein by reference. Step 2A, Prong 2: Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claims disclose the following additional elements: wherein the quality testing program comprises a machine-learned model trained to make the quality statement based on one or more of the evaluation criteria In this instance, training is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). The claims disclose the following additional elements: wherein the quality testing program comprises a machine-learned model trained to make the quality statement based on one or more of the evaluation criteria In this instance, training is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 6 : With respect to dependent claim 6, the claim depends upon independent claim 2. The analysis of claim 2 is incorporated herein by reference. Step 2A, Prong 1: With respect to claim 6 , the claim recites: wherein the quality testing… evaluations groups of model parameter values together and additionally takes into account information regarding a model parameter position within the image processing model as well as contextual information in order to calculate the quality statement (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation by comparing the groups of model parameters and account information regarding model parameter position and contextual information to calculate the quality measure) Step 2A, Prong 2: Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claims disclose the following additional elements: a quality testing program These additional claim elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). The claims disclose the following additional elements: a quality testing program These additional claim elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 7 : With respect to dependent claim 7, the claim depends upon independent claim 2. The analysis of claim 2 is incorporated herein by reference. Step 2A, Prong 1: With respect to claim 7 , the claim recites: wherein the quality testing… takes into account contextual information in addition to the model parameter values to calculate the quality statement, wherein the contextual information relates to one or more of the following: initial values of model parameters of the image processing model at a beginning of training an evolution of the model parameter values over a training training data of the image processing model a model architecture of the image processing model info rmation regarding an application for which microscope images were captured as training data of the image processing model information regarding a microscope or microscope settings with which microscope images were captured as training data of the image processing model a user identification a specification of a sample type visible in microscope images of the training data of the image processing model (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation by comparing the groups of model parameters and contextual information to calculate the quality measure) Step 2A, Prong 2: Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claims disclose the following additional elements: a quality testing program These additional claim elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). The claims disclose the following additional elements: a quality testing program These additional claim elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 8 : With respect to dependent claim 8, the claim depends upon independent claim 2. The analysis of claim 2 is incorporated herein by reference. Step 2A, Prong 1: With respect to claim 8 , the claim recites: wherein in cases where the quality statement confirms a usability of the image processing model: the image processing model calculates image processing results from microscope images or, subject to a supplemental verification of a model quality, the image processing model calculates image processing results from microscope images (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a a judgement to confirm usability of the image and an evaluation to determine image processing results ) Claim 9 : With respect to dependent claim 9 , the claim depends upon independent claim 2. The analysis of claim 2 is incorporated herein by reference. Step 2A, Prong 1: With respect to claim 8, the claim recites: wherein in cases where the quality statement categorizes the image processing model as unsuitable (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses aa judgement to determine usability of the image ) Step 2A, Prong 2: Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claims disclose the following additional elements: a new training of the image processing model is implemented with a change, wherein the change relates to one of the following: hyperparameters, an optimizer used or a regularization of a training of the image processing model a removal of model parameters from the image processing model or an addition of model parameters to the image processing model, or a change in architecture, or a division into training and validation data or a selection of training and validation data In this instance, training is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). The claims disclose the following additional elements: hyperparameters, an optimizer used or a regularization of a training of the image processing model a removal of model parameters from the image processing model or an addition of model parameters to the image processing model, or a change in architecture, or a division into training and validation data or a selection of training and validation data In this instance, training is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 10 : With respect to dependent claim 10 , the claim depends upon independent claim 2. The analysis of claim 2 is incorporated herein by reference. Step 2A, Prong 1: With respect to claim 10 , the claim recites: wherein the quality testing… determines the change based on at least the model parameter values and contextual information regarding the image processing model (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation by comparing the groups of model parameters and contextual information to calculate the quality measure) Step 2A, Prong 2: Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claims disclose the following additional elements: a quality testing program These additional claim elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). The claims disclose the following additional elements: a quality testing program These additional claim elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 11 : With respect to dependent claim 11, the claim depends upon independent claim 2. The analysis of claim 2 is incorporated herein by reference. Step 2A, Prong 2: Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claims disclose the following additional elements: performing the quality testing of the image processing model during an ongoing training of the image processing model continuing or reinitiating the training with changes as a function of the quality statement In this instance, training is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). The claims disclose the following additional elements: performing the quality testing of the image processing model during an ongoing training of the image processing model continuing or reinitiating the training with changes as a function of the quality statement In this instance, training is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 1 2 : With respect to dependent claim 1 2 , the claim depends upon independent claim 2. The analysis of claim 2 is incorporated herein by reference. Step 2A, Prong 1: With respect to claim 1 2 , the claim recites: wherein the image processing model is configured to calculate a processing result in the form of at least one of the following from at least one microscopic image: a statement regarding whether certain objects are present in the microscopic image geometric specification relating to depicted objects an identification, a number, or characteristics of depicted objects a warning regarding analysis conditions, microscope settings, sample characteristics, or image characteristics a control command for controlling the microscope or for a subsequent image evaluation or a recommendation of a control command for controlling the microscope or for a subsequent image evaluation a classification result that specifies a categorization into at least one of a plurality of possible classes as a function of depicted image content a semantic segmentation or detection of certain structures (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation by comparing the groups of model parameters and contextual information to calculate a processing result ) Step 2A, Prong 2: Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claims disclose the following additional elements: an output image in which depicted objects are more clearly visible or are depicted in a higher image quality or in which a depiction of certain structures is suppressed These additional claim elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). The claims disclose the following additional elements: an output image in which depicted objects are more clearly visible or are depicted in a higher image quality or in which a depiction of certain structures is suppressed These additional claim elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 13 : With respect to independent claim 13, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 2. The analysis of claim 2 is incorporated herein. Step 2A, Prong 2: Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claims disclose the following additional elements: a computer program, comprising commands stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and which when executed by the computer, causes the execution of the method These additional claim elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). The claims disclose the following additional elements: a computer program, comprising commands stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and which when executed by the computer, causes the execution of the method These additional claim elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1-5, 7-8, 10, and 12- 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Amthor et al. (US 2020/0371333, published 26 November 2020, hereafter Amthor) . As per independent claim 1, Amthor discloses a microscopy system, comprising: a microscope for image capture (paragraphs 0003-0004: Here, a microscope, such as a light microscope or X-ray microscope, may be used to capture an image) a computing device (paragraph 0003: Here, a computer is used for the image processing algorithm) that is configured to train, using the training data, an image processing model to calculate an image processing result from at least one microscope image (paragraph 0010: Here, a verification algorithm is used to process image data. This verification algorithm is trained using reference images and reference verification results) wherein the computing device comprises a quality testing program for testing a quality of the image processing model (paragraph 0010: Here, a verification algorithm is a quality testing program for testing the quality of the image processing algorithm (model) ), wherein the quality testing program is configured to make a quality statement on a quality of the image processing model from learned model parameter values of the image processing model (paragraph 0016: Here, the image , output from the image processing algorithm, is assigned a quality of “correct” or “incorrect” image processing results) As per independent claim 2, Amthor discloses a computer-implemented method for testing a quality of a machine-learned image processing model, configured to calculate an image processing result from at least one microscope image, the method including: inputting learned model parameter values of the image processing model into a quality testing program which is configured to make a quality statement on a quality of the image processing model from input model parameter values (paragraphs 0010 and 0016: Here, a verification algorithm is a quality testing program for testing the quality of the image processing algorithm (model) . The image, output from the image processing algorithm, is assigned a quality of “correct” or “incorrect” image processing results) using the quality testing program to calculate a quality statement regarding a quality of the image processing model based on the learned model parameter values (paragraph 0010: Here, a verification algorithm is used to process image data. This verification algorithm is trained using reference images and reference verification results . The image, output from the image processing algorithm, is assigned a quality of “correct” or “incorrect” image processing results (paragraph 0016) ) As per dependent claim 3, Amthor discloses wherein for the calculation of the quality statement a quality measure is derived from the learned model parameter values and compared with reference values (paragraphs 0017-0018: Here, the verification algorithm compares image processing results outputs with references images to determine whether the image processing algorithm has oper