DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 05 September 2023 for application 18/461,410 filed 05 September 2023. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected. 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. 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 § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim(s) 1-20 is/ are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claim (s) is/ are directed to an abstract idea, and because the claim elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al. , 573 US 208 (2014). Regarding claim 1 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a(n) method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) processor-implemented method . The limitation of determining a fixed local zone associated with each of the plurality of clients, the fixed local zone having a first fixed boundary , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of updating model weights of a central machine learning model based on local machine learning updates for a local subset of the plurality of clients, the local subset corresponding to the fixed local zone , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating weight values . The limitation of updating the model weights of the central machine learning model based on neighbor machine learning updates for a neighbor subset of the plurality of clients, the neighbor subset corresponding to a fixed neighbor zone that neighbors the fixed local zone, the neighbor machine learning updates having a different weight than the local machine learning updates when updating model weights, a value of the different weight corresponding to a similarity parameter, the fixed neighbor zone having a second fixed boundary , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating weight values . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. According ly , the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element(s) – processor-implemented . Th e additional element (s) is /are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) . The claim recites additional element(s) – federated learning system, central machine learning model . Th e additional element (s) is /are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim recites receiving machine learning model updates from a plurality of clients in a federated learning system , which is simply receiving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element ( s ) o f: processor-implemented amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) receiving data amount (s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) , wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit (y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d)) federated learning system, central machine learning model amount (s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) The additional element(s) do (es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 2 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) processor-implemented method . The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 2 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of learning the similarity parameter with machine learning training . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. T he claim recites learning the similarity parameter with machine learning training which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of model generation and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element ( s ) o f: generic training to perform the abstract idea amount (s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The additional element(s) do (es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 3 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) processor-implemented method . The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 3 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of in which the similarity parameter comprises a self-attention coefficient . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the parameters and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the parameters do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 4 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) processor-implemented method . The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 3 is applicable here since claim 4 carries out the method of claim 3 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of in which the self-attention coefficient normalizes a relationship between the local machine learning updates of the local subset and the neighbor machine learning updates of the neighbor subset . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the parameters and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the parameters do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 5 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) processor-implemented method . The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 4 is applicable here since claim 5 carries out the method of claim 4 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of in which the relationship comprises an inner product . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 6 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a(n) apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) apparatus. The limitation of determine a fixed local zone associated with each of the plurality of clients, the fixed local zone having a first fixed boundary , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of update model weights of a central machine learning model based on local machine learning updates for a local subset of the plurality of clients, the local subset corresponding to the fixed local zone , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating weight values . The limitation of update the model weights of the central machine learning model based on neighbor machine learning updates for a neighbor subset of the plurality of clients, the neighbor subset corresponding to a fixed neighbor zone that neighbors the fixed local zone, the neighbor machine learning updates having a different weight than the local machine learning updates when updating model weights, a value of the different weight corresponding to a similarity parameter, the fixed neighbor zone having a second fixed boundary , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating weight values . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. According ly , the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element(s) – apparatus, at least one memory, at least one processor . Th e additional element (s) is /are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) . The claim recites additional element(s) – federated learning system, central machine learning model . Th e additional element (s) is /are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim recites receive machine learning model updates from a plurality of clients in a federated learning system , which is simply receiving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element ( s ) o f: apparatus, at least one memory, at least one processor amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) receiving data amount (s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) , wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit (y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d)) federated learning system, central machine learning model amount (s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) The additional element(s) do (es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 7 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a(n) apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) apparatus. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 6 is applicable here since claim 7 carries out the apparatus of claim 6 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of learn the similarity parameter with machine learning training . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. T he claim recites learn the similarity parameter with machine learning training which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of model generation and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element ( s ) o f: generic training to perform the abstract idea amount (s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The additional element(s) do (es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 8 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a(n) apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) apparatus. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 6 is applicable here since claim 8 carries out the apparatus of claim 6 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of in which the similarity parameter comprises a self-attention coefficient . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the parameters and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the parameters do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 9 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a(n) apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) apparatus. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 8 is applicable here since claim 9 carries out the apparatus of claim 8 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of in which the self-attention coefficient normalizes a relationship between the local machine learning updates of the local subset and the neighbor machine learning updates of the neighbor subset . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the parameters and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the parameters do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 10 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a(n) apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) apparatus. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 9 is applicable here since claim 10 carries out the apparatus of claim 9 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of in which the relationship comprises an inner product . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 11 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a(n) apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) apparatus. The limitation of determining a fixed local zone associated with each of the plurality of clients, the fixed local zone having a first fixed boundary , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of updating model weights of a central machine learning model based on local machine learning updates for a local subset of the plurality of clients, the local subset corresponding to the fixed local zone , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating weight values . The limitation of updating the model weights of the central machine learning model based on neighbor machine learning updates for a neighbor subset of the plurality of clients, the neighbor subset corresponding to a fixed neighbor zone that neighbors the fixed local zone, the neighbor machine learning updates having a different weight than the local machine learning updates when updating model weights, a value of the different weight corresponding to a similarity parameter, the fixed neighbor zone having a second fixed boundary , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating weight values . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. According ly , the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element(s) – apparatus . Th e additional element (s) is /are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) . The claim recites additional element(s) – federated learning system, central machine learning model . Th e additional element (s) is /are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim recites receiving machine learning model updates from a plurality of clients in a federated learning system , which is simply receiving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element ( s ) o f: apparatus amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) receiving data amount (s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) , wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit (y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d)) federated learning system, central machine learning model amount (s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) The additional element(s) do (es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 12 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a(n) apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) apparatus. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 11 is applicable here since claim 12 carries out the apparatus of claim 11 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of learning the similarity parameter with machine learning training . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. T he claim recites learning the similarity parameter with machine learning training which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of model generation and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element ( s ) o f: generic training to perform the abstract idea amount (s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The additional element(s) do (es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 13 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a(n) apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) apparatus. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 11 is applicable here since claim 13 carries out the apparatus of claim 11 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of in which the similarity parameter comprises a self-attention coefficient . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the parameters and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the parameters do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 14 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a(n) apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) apparatus. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 13 is applicable here since claim 14 carries out the apparatus of claim 13 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of in which the self-attention coefficient normalizes a relationship between the local machine learning updates of the local subset and the neighbor machine learning updates of the neighbor subset . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the parameters and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the parameters do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 15 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a(n) apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) apparatus. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 14 is applicable here since claim 15 carries out the apparatus of claim 14 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of in which the relationship comprises an inner product . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 16 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a(n) computer-readable medium , which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium . The limitation of determine a fixed local zone associated with each of the plurality of clients, the fixed local zone having a first fixed boundary , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of update model weights of a central machine learning model based on local machine learning updates for a local subset of the plurality of clients, the local subset corresponding to the fixed local zone , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating weight values . The limitation of update the model weights of the central machine learning model based on neighbor machine learning updates for a neighbor subset of the plurality of clients, the neighbor subset corresponding to a fixed neighbor zone that neighbors the fixed local zone, the neighbor machine learning updates having a different weight than the local machine learning updates when updating model weights, a value of the different weight corresponding to a similarity parameter, the fixed neighbor zone having a second fixed boundary , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating weight values . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. According ly , the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element(s) – computer-readable medium, program code, processor . Th e additional element (s) is /are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) . The claim recites additional element(s) – federated learning system, central machine learning model . Th e additional element (s) is /are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim recites receive machine learning model updates from a plurality of clients in a federated learning system , which is simply receiving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element ( s ) o f: computer-readable medium, program code, processor amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) receiving data amount (s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) , wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit (y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d)) federated learning system, central machine learning model amount (s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) The additional element(s) do (es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 17 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a(n) computer-readable medium , which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium . The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 16 is applicable here since claim 17 carries out the computer-readable medium of claim 16 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of learn the similarity parameter with machine learning training . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. T he claim recites learn the similarity parameter with machine learning training which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of model generation and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element ( s ) o f: generic training to perform the abstract idea amount (s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The additional element(s) do (es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 18 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a(n) computer-readable medium , which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium . The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 16 is applicable here since claim 18 carries out the computer-readable medium of claim 16 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of in which the similarity parameter comprises a self-attention coefficient . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the parameters and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the parameters do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 19 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to a(n) computer-readable medium , which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium . The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 18 is applicable here since claim 19 carries out the computer-readable medium of claim 18 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of in which the self-attention coefficient normalizes a relationship between the local machine learning updates of the local subset and the neighbor machine learning updates of the neighbor subset . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the parameters and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the parameters do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 20 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to a(n) computer-readable medium , which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory catego