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. Priority The present application is a continuation of provisional application no. 63/369,420 as filed on 07/26/2022, as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/31/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Interpretation 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. FILLIN "Identify by reference to page and line numbers and drawing figures the subject matter not properly described in the application as filed and explain your position" \* MERGEFORMAT The claim limitations identified below invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the functions. Therefore, it is unclear whether Applicant had possession of the claimed invention as of the effective filing date. See analysis in rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) infra for further analysis. 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. Claim 30 is 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 limitation “ FILLIN "Recite the limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph." \d "[ 1 ]" means for accessing input data comprising a plurality of points in multidimensional space; ” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. FILLIN "Explain why there is insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function or why there is no clear linkage between the structure, material, or acts and the function." \d "[ 2 ]" At most paragraph 31 and Fig. 1 of the published specification indicate the plurality of points that reside in a multidimensional space but no recitation or algorithm to how a generic processing system would access the plurality of points from the input data. Claim limitation “means for identifying an edge connecting a first point of the plurality of points and a second point of the plurality of points;” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. FILLIN "Explain why there is insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function or why there is no clear linkage between the structure, material, or acts and the function." \d "[ 2 ]" At most paragraph 35 and Fig. 1 indicate the identification of edges in the input data but do not sufficiently disclose how functions such as " the edge component 115 may identify or generate a corresponding edge, such that the point cloud 105 is fully connected." are accomplished. Claim limitation “ means for mapping the edge to a defined axis in the multidimensional space by applying a group element to the edge; ” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. FILLIN "Explain why there is insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function or why there is no clear linkage between the structure, material, or acts and the function." \d "[ 2 ]" At most paragraph 21 provides examples of mapping an edge to a defined axis in a multidimensional space. However, no details of the mapping process are disclosed, so it is unclear how the mapping of the edge occurs. Claim limitation “means for generating an intermediate feature by processing the mapped edge using a neural network;” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. FILLIN "Explain why there is insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function or why there is no clear linkage between the structure, material, or acts and the function." \d "[ 2 ]" At most paragraph 39 and Fig. 1 of the specification detail the function but there is no algorithm disclosed for performing the claimed function of generating an intermediate feature other than stating the action is done by a feature component. Claim limitation “means for generating an output feature by applying an inverse of the group element to the intermediate feature;” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. FILLIN "Explain why there is insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function or why there is no clear linkage between the structure, material, or acts and the function." \d "[ 2 ]" At most paragraph 40 of the specification detail the function but there is no algorithm disclosed for performing the claimed function of generating an output feature by applying an inverse other than stating the ouput is generated from the mapping component. Claim limitation “ means for generating an output inference based at least in part on the output feature. ” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. FILLIN "Explain why there is insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function or why there is no clear linkage between the structure, material, or acts and the function." \d "[ 2 ]" P aragraph 42 recites the generation of the output inference with a high level of generality but does not sufficiently descibe how the inference generation of the model is accomplished . Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. 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 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following sections following the 2019 PEG guidelines for analyzing subject matter eligibility. The analysis below of the claims’ subject matter eligibility follows the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”) and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence, 89 Fed. Reg. 58128-58138 (July 17, 2024) (“2024 AI SME Update”). When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, 1.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined 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 in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, 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 else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 1 Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: identifying a first edge connecting a first point of the plurality of points and a second point of the plurality of points; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed) mapping the first edge to a defined axis in the multidimensional space by applying a first group element to the first edge; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed) generating a first output feature by applying an inverse of the first group element to the first intermediate feature (Mathematical Concepts: are defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.) generating an output inference based at least in part on the first output feature. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed) Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements: accessing input data comprising a plurality of points in multidimensional space (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g)) generating a first intermediate feature by processing the mapped first edge using a neural network (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. accessing input data comprising a plurality of points in multidimensional space (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i)) generating a first intermediate feature by processing the mapped first edge using a neural network (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A)) As an ordered whole, the claim is directed to a method of transforming input data , this is nothing more than using machine learning models to modifying data . Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible. Claim 2 incorporates the rejection of claim 1. Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exception of claim 1 are incorporated. generating a plurality of output features based on the plurality of points (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed) generating the output inference based on the plurality of output features. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed) Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements: The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical applications. (Merely asserting that a judicial exceptions is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “ manipulating input data and making predictions on them ” of base claim 1 ) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) ) Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., “ manipulating input data and making predictions on them ” of base claim 1) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 3 incorporates the rejection of claim 1. Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exception of claim 1 are incorporated. Please see the analysis of claim 1 above. Regarding the method recited in claim 1, these steps cover mental processes based on manipulating input data and making predictions on them. Therefore, claim 3 is directed to an abstract idea – Mental Processes (i.e., can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgements as claimed) Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements: computing, for each respective edge in the input data, a respective group element to map the respective edge to the defined axis. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. computing, for each respective edge in the input data, a respective group element to map the respective edge to the defined axis. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A)) Claim 4 incorporates the rejection of claim 1. Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exception of claim 1 are incorporated. wherein identifying the first edge comprises determining that the first point and the second point are within a defined distance in the multidimensional space. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed) Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements: The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical applications. (Merely asserting that a judicial exceptions is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “manipulating input data and making predictions on them” of base claim 1) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)) Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., “manipulating input data and making predictions on them” of base claim 1) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 5 incorporates the rejection of claim 1. Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exception of claim 1 are incorporated. wherein the first edge is specified in the input data. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed) Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements: The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical applications. (Merely asserting that a judicial exceptions is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “manipulating input data and making predictions on them” of base claim 1) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)) Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., “manipulating input data and making predictions on them” of base claim 1) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 6 incorporates the rejection of claim 1. Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exception of claim 1 are incorporated. wherein the first group element comprises a set of translations and a set of rotations that map the first edge to the defined axis. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed) Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements: The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical applications. (Merely asserting that a judicial exceptions is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “manipulating input data and making predictions on them” of base claim 1) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)) Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., “manipulating input data and making predictions on them” of base claim 1) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 7 incorporates the rejection of claim 6. Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exception of claim 6 are incorporated. wherein applying the first group element causes the second point to move to an origin in the multidimensional space and the first point to move to the defined axis of the multidimensional space at a distance r from the origin, wherein the distance r is defined based on a length of the first edge. (Mathematical Concepts: are defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.) Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements: The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical applications. (Merely asserting that a judicial exceptions is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “manipulating input data and making predictions on them” of base claim 1) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)) Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., “manipulating input data and making predictions on them” of base claim 1) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 8 incorporates the rejection of claim 1. Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exception of claim 1 are incorporated. Please see the analysis of claim 1 above. Regarding the method recited in claim 1, these steps cover mental processes based on manipulating input data and making predictions on them. Therefore, claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea – Mental Processes (i.e., can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgements as claimed) Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements: the neural network is an invariant message-passing network (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h)) the first output feature for the first point is generated further based on summing messages over a set of edges connected to the first point. (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g)) Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. the neural network is an invariant message-passing network (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h)) the first output feature for the first point is generated further based on summing messages over a set of edges connected to the first point. (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i)) The courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A)) Claim 9 incorporates the rejection of claim 1. Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exception of claim 1 are incorporated. determining a length of the first edge; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed) Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements: accessing a convolution kernel based on the length of the first edge; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g)) convolving one or more features of the second point with the convolution kernel. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. accessing a convolution kernel based on the length of the first edge; (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i)) convolving one or more features of the second point with the convolution kernel. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A)) Claim 10 incorporates the rejection of claim 9. Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exception of claim 9 are incorporated. determining to use the convolution kernel to process the mapped first edge. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed) Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements: wherein accessing the convolution kernel comprises, in response to determining that the convolution kernel was trained based on edges having lengths equal to the length of the first edge (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g)) Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. wherein accessing the convolution kernel comprises, in response to determining that the convolution kernel was trained based on edges having lengths equal to the length of the first edge (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i)) Claim 11 incorporates the rejection of claim 9. Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exception of claim 9 are incorporated. Please see the analysis of claim 9 above. Regarding the method recited in claim 9, these steps cover mental processes based on manipulating input data and making predictions on them. Therefore, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea – Mental Processes (i.e., can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgements as claimed) Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements: wherein accessing the convolution kernel comprises, in response to determining that no kernels in the neural network were trained based on edges having lengths equal to the length of the first edge (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g)) accessing a first kernel trained based on edges shorter than the length of the first edge; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g)) accessing a second kernel trained based on edges longer than the length of the first edge; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g)) generating the convolution kernel by interpolating between the first kernel and the second kernel. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. wherein accessing the convolution kernel comprises, in response to determining that no kernels in the neural network were trained based on edges having lengths equal to the length of the first edge (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i)) accessing a first kernel trained based on edges shorter than the length of the first edge; (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i)) accessing a second kernel trained based on edges longer than the length of the first edge; (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i)) generating the convolution kernel by interpolating between the first kernel and the second kernel. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A)) Claim 12 incorporates the rejection of claim 1. Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exception of claim 1 are incorporated. Please see the analysis of claim 1 above. Regarding the method recited in claim 1, these steps cover mental processes based on manipulating input data and making predictions on them. Therefore, claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea – Mental Processes (i.e., can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgements as claimed) Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements: wherein the output inference corresponds to one or more of: a computer vision prediction, wherein the input data corresponds to image data. (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g)) Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. wherein the output inference corresponds to one or more of: a computer vision prediction, wherein the input data corresponds to image data. (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i)) Claim 13 Step 1: The claim recites a system, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: identifying a first edge connecting a first point of the plurality of points and a second point of the plurality of points; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed) mapping the first edge to a defined axis in the multidimensional space by applying a first group element to the first edge; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed) generating a first output feature by applying an inverse of the first group element to the first intermediate feature (Mathematical Concepts: are defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.) generating an output inference based at least in part on the first output feature. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed) Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements: a memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the processing system to perform an operation comprising: (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) accessing input data comprising a plurality of points in multidimensional space (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g)) generating a first intermediate feature by processing the mapped first edge using a neural network (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. a memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the processing system to perform an operation comprising: (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) accessing input data comprising a plurality of points in multidimensional space (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i)) generating a first intermediate feature by processing the mapped first edge using a neural network (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A)) As an ordered whole, the claim is directed to a method of transforming input data, this is nothing more than using machine learning models to modifying data. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible. Claim 14 incorporates the rejection of claim 13. Step 1: The claim recites a system, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exception of claim 13 are incorporated. Please see the analysis of claim 13 above. Regarding the method recited in claim 13, these steps cover mental processes based on manipulating input data and making predictions on them. Therefore, claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea – Mental Processes (i.e., can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgements as claimed) Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements: computing, for each respective edge in the input data, a respective group element to map the respective edge to the defined axis. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. computing, for each respective edge in the input data, a respective group element to map the respective edge to the defined axis. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A)) Claim 15 incorporates the rejection of claim 13. Step 1: The claim recites a system, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exception of claim 13 are incorporated. wherein identifying the first edge comprises determining that the first point and the second point are within a defined distance in the multidimensional space. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed) Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements: The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical applications. (Merely asserting that a judicial exceptions is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “manipulating input data and making predictions on them” of base claim 13) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)) Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., “manipulating input data and making predictions on them” of base claim 13) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 16 incorporates the rejection of claim 13. Step 1: The claim recites a system, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exception of claim 13 are incorporated. wherein the first edge is specified in the input data. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed) Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements: The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical applications. (Merely asserting that a judicial exceptions is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “manipulating input data and making predictions on them” of base claim 13) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)) Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., “manipulating input data and making predictions on them” of base claim 13) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 17 incorporates the rejection of claim 13. Step 1: The claim recites a system, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exception of claim 13 are incorporated. wherein the first group element comprises a set of translations and a set of rotations that map the first edge to the defined axis, (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed) applying the first group element causes the second point to move to an origin in the multidimensional space and the first point to move to the defined axis of the multidimensional space at a distance r from the origin, wherein the distance r is defined based on a length of the first edge. (Mathematical Concepts: are defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.) Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements: The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical applications. (Merely asserting that a judicial exceptions is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “manipulating input data and making predictions on them” of base claim 1 3 ) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)) Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., “manipulating input data and making predictions on them” of base claim 1 3 ) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 18 incorporates the rejection of claim 13. Step 1: The claim recites a system,