DETAILED ACTION Office Action Summary Claims 1-5 are pending in the instant application. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 USC § 101/112. 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. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As per claim 1 recite neural network system of modules and are therefore software per se not embodied on non-transitory computer readable medium. Claims 2-5 are dependent on claim 1, however, they do not add any feature or subject matter that would resolve any of the non-statutory deficiencies of claim 1. Claims 1-5 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. Claim(s) 1-5 is/are directed to the abstract idea of solving a mathematical equation (See Parker v Flook , e.g. mathematical formulas and relationships). The additional language teaches the steps to solve the equation. However, these additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Further, the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 USC § 112 b. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Some of the issues are outlined below : Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bounded string" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first-order differential" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the displacement" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the equation" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the source term" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 has multiple equations listed however the variables are not clearly defined such as the variable d in the first equation. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SIMON P KANAAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3906 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F (7AM-4PM) . 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 Catherine Thiaw can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1183 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /SIMON P KANAAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407