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 action is responsive to the Application filed on 8 / 3 /2023. Claims 1- 18 are pending in the case. Claims 1 and 7 are independent claims. Claim Objections Claim 14 is objected to because it recites “ backs ” where “ backing ” was apparently intended. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation Claim 4 recites “ etc. ” Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. MPEP § 2111.04. Claim 7 recites “ tag/unit/section ” which appears to be a Markush group . Claim 8 recites “ unit/section ” which appears to be a Markush group . Claim 9 recites “ since it is deemed to be noise ” which appears to be an intended use rather than a positive claim limitation. Claim 16 recites “ quantile/quartile ” which appears to be a Markush group . Claim 18 recites “ to avoid information loss from data ” which appears to be an intended use rather than a positive claim limitation. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f): (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the claim limitation s use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a key factor extraction and individual tag importance backup unit that extracts … and backs up …,” “a yield prediction model training and yield prediction performing unit that performs … and performs … evaluates … and selects …,” “an importance calculation unit that calculates …,” “a yield prediction model training unit that performs …,” “a yield prediction performing unit that performs …,” “a performance evaluation and optimal model selection unit that evaluates … and selects …,” “a data extraction unit that extracts …,” “an outlier discrimination unit that discriminates and aggregates …,” “an outlier processing unit that generates …,” “a derived variable generation unit that generates … and generates …,” “a yield calculation unit that backs up …,” “a key factor extraction unit that extracts … and backs up …,” “a key factor extraction and individual tag importance backup step of extracting … and backing up …,” “an importance calculation step of calculating …,” “a yield prediction model training step of performing …,” “a yield prediction performing step of performing …,” “a performance evaluation and optimal model selection step of evaluating … and selecting …,” “a data extraction step of extracting …,” “an outlier discrimination step of discriminating and aggregating …,” “an outlier processing step of generating …,” “a derived variable generation step of generating … and generating …,” “a yield calculation step of backing …,” and “a key factor extraction step of extracting … and backs up …” in claims 1-3, 7, and 14 . Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 4 contains the trademark/trade name “LIMS (Laboratory Information Management System).” Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). See Ex parte Simpson , 218 U.S.P.Q. 1020, 1021, 1022 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scopes are uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe laboratory data and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Dependent claims inherit the same issue from parent claims and do not resolve it. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 4 recites “ long integers/short integers, ” which are fundamental binary format s rather than data source s . It is unclear how a set of data itself could comprise format s . For the purposes of prior art and subject matter eligibility analyses Examiner assumes some of the data values are larger than other values . Dependent claims inherit the same issue from parent claims and do not resolve it. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 4 recites “long integers/short integers,” which renders the claims indefinite. The term s “ long ” and “short” are not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of prior art and subject matter eligibility analyses Examiner assumes some of the data values are larger than other values. Dependent claims inherit the same issue from parent claims and do not resolve it. Claim s 6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim s 6 and 15 recite “ over time in consistency with the concept of a machine learning-based system ,” which renders the claims indefinite. The term s “ consistency ” and “ concept ” are not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of prior art and subject matter eligibility analyses Examiner assumes the updates are continuous . Dependent claims inherit the same issue from parent claims and do not resolve it. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 8 recites “ mid-sized ” and “ large-size ,” which renders the claims indefinite. The term s “ mid-sized ” and “ large-size ” are not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of prior art and subject matter eligibility analyses Examiner assumes any size is “mid-sized” and “large-size . ” Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 9 recites “ unimportant ,” which renders the claims indefinite. The term “ unimportant ” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of prior art and subject matter eligibility analyses Examiner assumes any data other than “ the most important ” may or may not be considered “ unimportant .” Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 11 recites “ high predictability ,” which renders the claims indefinite. The term “ high predictability ” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of prior art and subject matter eligibility analyses Examiner assumes any degree of predictability is high predictability . Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101 35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As to claim 1 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a machine . Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “ extracts yield key factors by calculating the importance of each tag ” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Yes, the limitation “ evaluates performance ” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) . See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Yes, the limitation “ selects an optimal prediction model ” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) . See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No, the limitation “ a key factor extraction and individual tag importance backup unit ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “ backs up importance data for each tag ” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). No, the limitation “ a yield prediction model training and yield prediction performing unit ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “performs yield prediction model training by using the importance of each tag accumulated in the key factor extraction and individual tag importance backup unit ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “performs yield prediction model training by using the importance of each tag accumulated in the key factor extraction and individual tag importance backup unit ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (2) . No, the limitation “performs yield prediction so as to output a yield prediction result ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “performs yield prediction so as to output a yield prediction result ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (2) . The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. No, the limitation “ a key factor extraction and individual tag importance backup unit ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “ backs up importance data for each tag ” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore th e additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network , which the courts have recognized as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). No, the limitation “ a yield prediction model training and yield prediction performing unit ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “performs yield prediction model training by using the importance of each tag accumulated in the key factor extraction and individual tag importance backup unit ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “performs yield prediction model training by using the importance of each tag accumulated in the key factor extraction and individual tag importance backup unit ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (2) . No, the limitation “performs yield prediction so as to output a yield prediction result ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “performs yield prediction so as to output a yield prediction result ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (2) . The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claim 2 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a machine . Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “ calculates the importance of each tag/unit/section from the importance data backed up in the key factor extraction and individual tag importance backup unit ” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Yes, the limitation “ evaluates the performance of the yield prediction model … by using the yield prediction result ” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) . See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Yes, the limitation “ selects an optimal prediction model, by using the yield prediction result ” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) . See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No, the limitation “ an importance calculation unit ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “ a yield prediction model training unit ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “performs yield prediction model training by using the calculated importance of each tag ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “performs yield prediction model training by using the calculated importance of each tag ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (2) . No, the limitation “ a yield prediction performing unit ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “performs yield prediction through a yield prediction model trained in the yield prediction model training unit so as to output a yield prediction result ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “performs yield prediction through a yield prediction model trained in the yield prediction model training unit so as to output a yield prediction result ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (2) . No, the limitation “ a performance evaluation and optimal model selection unit ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. No, the limitation “ an importance calculation unit ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “ a yield prediction model training unit ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “performs yield prediction model training by using the calculated importance of each tag ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “performs yield prediction model training by using the calculated importance of each tag ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (2) . No, the limitation “ a yield prediction performing unit ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “performs yield prediction through a yield prediction model trained in the yield prediction model training unit so as to output a yield prediction result ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “performs yield prediction through a yield prediction model trained in the yield prediction model training unit so as to output a yield prediction result ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (2) . No, the limitation “ a performance evaluation and optimal model selection unit ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claim 3 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a machine . Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “ discriminates and aggregates outliers by tag by using an outlier extraction reference master ” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) . See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Yes, the limitation “ generates an input mart draft excluding the outliers ” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) . See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Yes, the limitation “ generates derived variables for each tag, and generates an advanced input mart having the derived variable added thereto ” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) . See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Yes, the limitation “ backs up the result of calculation of a yield by realizing a target value via exclusion and correction of the outliers ” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Yes, the limitation “ extracts a yield key factor by calculating importance of each tag ” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No, the limitation “ a data extraction unit ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “ extracts tag data in units of a set period ” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). No, the limitation “ an outlier discrimination unit ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “ an outlier processing unit ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “ a derived variable generation unit ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “ a yield calculation unit ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “ a key factor extraction unit ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “ backs up importance data for each tag ” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. No, the limitation “ a data extraction unit ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “ extracts tag data in units of a set period ” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore th e additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network , which the courts have recognized as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). No, the limitation “ an outlier discrimination unit ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “ an outlier processing unit ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “ a derived variable generation unit ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “ a yield calculation unit ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “ a key factor extraction unit ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “ backs up importance data for each tag ” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore th e additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network , which the courts have recognized as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claim 4 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a machine . Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No, the limitation “ wherein data to be inputted into the data extraction unit includes: plant process operation data in an olefin production process, including data for each section, each unit, and each tag ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “ wherein data to be inputted into the data extraction unit includes: laboratory data including LIMS (Laboratory Information Management System) data, plant event master data including a shut-down history, long integers/short integers, etc. ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “ wherein data to be inputted into the data extraction unit includes: past yield data including conversion rates and selectivity ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. No, the limitation “ wherein data to be inputted into the data extraction unit includes: plant process operation data in an olefin production process, including data for each section, each unit, and each tag ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “ wherein data to be inputted into the data extraction unit includes: laboratory data including LIMS (Laboratory Information Management System) data, plant event master data including a shut-down history, long integers/short integers, etc. ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “ wherein data to be inputted into the data extraction unit includes: past yield data including conversion rates and selectivity ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claim 5 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a machine . Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No, the limitation “ wherein the plant process operation data in the olefin production process is sensor data including temperature, pressure, flow, and composition data, and past data accumulated continuously over a unit period of time ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. No, the limitation “ wherein the plant process operation data in the olefin production process is sensor data including temperature, pressure, flow, and composition data, and past data accumulated continuously over a unit period of time ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claim 6 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a machine . Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “ wherein the outlier extraction reference master which is used for the outlier discrimination unit to discriminate and aggregate outliers for each tag continuously updates reference values for extracting outliers over time in consistency with the concept of a machine learning-based system ” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) . See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. As to claim 7 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a process . Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “ a key factor extraction and individual tag importance backup step of extracting yield key factors by calculating the importance of each tag ” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Yes, the limitation “ an importance calculation step of calculating the importance of each tag/unit/section from the backed-up importance data ” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Yes, the limitation “ a performance evaluation and optimal model selection step of evaluating the performance of the yield prediction model ” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) . See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Yes, the limitation “ a performance evaluation and optimal model selection step of … selecting an optimal prediction model, by using the yield prediction result ” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) . See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No, the limitation “ a key factor extraction and individual tag importance backup step of … backing up importance data for each tag ” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). No, the limitation “a yield prediction model training step of performing yield prediction model training by using the calculated importance of each tag ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “a yield prediction model training step of performing yield prediction model training by using the calculated importance of each tag ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (2) . No, the limitation “a yield prediction performing step of performing yield prediction through a yield prediction model trained in the yield prediction model training unit so as to output a yield prediction result ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “a yield prediction performing step of performing yield prediction through a yield prediction model trained in the yield prediction model training unit so as to output a yield prediction result ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (2) . The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. No, the limitation “ a key factor extraction and individual tag importance backup step of … backing up importance data for each tag ” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore th e additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network , which the courts have recognized as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). No, the limitation “a yield prediction model training step of performing yield prediction model training by using the calculated importance of each tag ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “a yield prediction model training step of performing yield prediction model training by using the calculated importance of each tag ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (2) . No, the limitation “a yield prediction performing step of performing yield prediction through a yield prediction model trained in the yield prediction model training unit so as to output a yield prediction result ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “a yield prediction performing step of performing yield prediction through a yield prediction model trained in the yield prediction model training unit so as to output a yield prediction result ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (2) . The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claim 8 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a process . Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “ wherein, in the importance calculation step, the importance of each unit/section is calculated based on the importance of each tag ” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) . See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No, the limitation “ wherein a unit is a mid-sized set of tags, a section is a large-size set of units, and a number of sections are put together to form a whole plant of an olefin production process ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. No, the limitation “ wherein a unit is a mid-sized set of tags, a section is a large-size set of units, and a number of sections are put together to form a whole plant of an olefin production process ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claim 9 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a process . Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No, the limitation “wherein, based on the calculated variable importance (feature importance), the most important key factor is used as input into the prediction model, and unimportant data is excluded since it is deemed to be noise ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “wherein, based on the calculated variable importance (feature importance), the most important key factor is used as input into the prediction model, and unimportant data is excluded since it is deemed to be noise ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (2) . The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. No, the limitation “wherein, based on the calculated variable importance (feature importance), the most important key factor is used as input into the prediction model, and unimportant data is excluded since it is deemed to be noise ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “wherein, based on the calculated variable importance (feature importance), the most important key factor is used as input into the prediction model, and unimportant data is excluded since it is deemed to be noise ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (2) . The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claim 10 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a process . Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “ wherein outliers are removed ” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) . See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Yes, the limitation “ derived variables are generated ” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of