DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Status of Claims Claims 1-8 and 12-13 have been examined. Claims 9-11 and 14-16 have been canceled by the Applicant. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-8 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, claims 1-8 are directed to a system , claim 12 is directed to a non-transitory storage medium and claim 13 is directed to a method . T herefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. The claims are directed to generating a sample value based on determined values which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “ determine a first probability distribution of quantized values…; sample the quantized values…; determine a second probability distribution …; and sample the quantized values… ” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test ( See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps of determining a first probability of quantized values in a range based on input, sampling the quantized values and determine a first sample value, determining a second probability distribution value corresponding to first sample value and sampling the quantized value and determining a second sample value which is a process that deals with mathematical calculations because claims are directed to generating a sample value s based on determined values . Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea ( See MPEP 2106.04(a)). Additionally, the steps /functions of method and system , under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite concepts that are performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations and judgements. In particular, generating a sample value based on determined values that may be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea, as it has been held that a combination of abstract ideas, in this case mathematical concept and mental processes , is still an abstract idea. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test ( See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claims such as, at least one processor , non-transitory storage medium and machine learning models merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, at least one processor, non-transitory storage medium and machine learning models perform the steps or functions of determining a first probability of quantized values in a range based on input, sampling the quantized values and determine a first sample value, determining a second probability distribution value corresponding to first sample value and sampling the quantized value and determining a second sample value . The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test ( See MPEP 2106 ), the additional elements of at least one processor, non-transitory storage medium and machine learning models , to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of generating sample value s based on determined values . As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, at least one processor, non-transitory storage medium and machine learning models perform the steps or functions of determining a first probability of quantized values in a range based on input, sampling the quantized values and determine a first sample value, determining a second probability distribution value corresponding to first sample value and sampling the quantized value and determining a second sample value . These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of generating sample value s based on determined values . Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim s are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-8 further describe the abstract idea of generating sample value s based on determined values . Specifically, claims 2-8 describing determining different values and further describing additional elements which are part of the abstract idea. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible. Statement regarding Prior art for claims 1-8 and 12-13 Regarding claim 1-8 and 12-13, Georg (EP3701432) discloses determine probability distribution of quantized values corresponding to input values (See paragraph 0045) sample the values (See paragraph 0054). However, prior art does not disclose neither singly nor in combination all of the specific combination of claims limitations which includes: determining a first probability distribution of quantized values in a predetermined value range corresponding to an input value, by using a first machine learning model; sampling the quantized values and determining a first sample value, using the first probability distribution; determining a second probability distribution corresponding to the first sample value, by using a second machine learning model; and sampling the quantized values in the value range and determining a second sample value, using the second probability distribution . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ZESHAN QAYYUM whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3323 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM EST . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT John W Hayes can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-6708 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ZESHAN QAYYUM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697