DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Drawings The drawings were received on 09/06/2023 . These drawings are acceptable. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1- 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the system claimed does not include non-transitory memory and thus directed to signal per se as the processor can be consider data (e.g. virtual processing set of instructions). Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes . Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. determine, via one or more logistic regression feature selection models , a set of features for the reinforcement learning model; determine, using off-policy evaluation , a performance level of the reinforcement learning model when using the set of features; determine, based on the performance level and using a classification model, a ranking of the set of features, wherein the ranking indicates an order of importance of the set of features on the performance level; generate one or more subsets of features from the set of features based on iteratively removing one or more features, from the set of features, in accordance with the ranking; determine, using the off-policy evaluation , one or more performance levels for respective subsets of features from the one or more subsets of features; and select a subset of features, from the one or more subsets of features, to be used for the reinforcement learning model based on the one or more performance levels. ( Mental process for evaluating and making judgements for generating an opinion as claimed selection process ) Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). determine, via one or more logistic regression feature selection models, … using off-policy evaluation, … determine, …. using a classification model, … determine, using the off-policy evaluation, … ( Claimed limitations merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).) … , to be used for the reinforcement learning model based on the one or more performance levels. . (Claimed limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h)) Alternatively : generate one or more subsets of features from the set of features based on iteratively removing one or more features, from the set of features, in accordance with the ranking; (Claimed limitations merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).) (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity, e.g. Performing repetitive calculations,) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application . Specifically, first, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception. Second, the limitations directed to insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation are directed to insignificant solution activity for as noted above. The courts have deemed these types of activity as well-known routine and convectional, see evidences noted below: ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 2 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes . Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. wherein the reinforcement learning model is associated with multiple logistic regression models, and wherein the one or more processors, to determine the set of features, are configured to: determine the set of features using multiple logistic regression accuracy models associated with respective logistic regression models from the multiple logistic regression models ( Mental process for evaluating and making judgements for generating an opinion as claimed ) Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). … , and wherein the one or more processors, to determine the set of features, are configured to: determine the set of features using multiple logistic regression accuracy models associated with respective logistic regression models from the multiple logistic regression models . ( Claimed limitations merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).) wherein the reinforcement learning model is associated with multiple logistic regression models .. . (Claimed limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h)) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 3 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes . Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea from claim 1. Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein the classification model includes a decision tree. .. (Claimed limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h)) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 4 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes . Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. wherein the one or more processors, to generate the one or more subsets of features, are configured to: remove, in accordance with the ranking, a first feature from the set of features to generate a first subset of features from the one or more subsets of features; and remove, in accordance with the ranking, a second feature from the first subset of features to generate a second subset of features from the one or more subsets of features. . ( Mental process for evaluating and making judgements for generating an opinion as claimed ) Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein the one or more processors, to generate the one or more subsets of features, are configured to: remove … ( Claimed limitations merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 5 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes . Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea from claim 4 Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein the ranking indicates that the second feature has a greater impact on the performance level than the first feature. (Claimed limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h)) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use . These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 6 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes . Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. wherein one or more processors, to generate the one or more subsets of features, are configured to: remove the one or more features from the set of features in the order, wherein the order is from lesser impact to greater impact on the performance level. . ( Mental process for evaluating and making judgements for generating an opinion as claimed ) Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein one or more processors, to generate the one or more subsets of features, are configured to: remove the one or more features from the set of features in the order, wherein the order is from lesser impact to greater impact on the performance level. ( Claimed limitations merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 7 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes . Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. wherein one or more processors, to determine the ranking, are configured to: determine, using the classification model , feature importance scores for respective features from the set of features, wherein the feature importance scores indicate an impact of the respective features on the performance level; and determine the ranking based on the feature importance scores. ( Mental process for evaluating and making judgements for generating an opinio n as claimed ) Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein one or more processors, to determine the ranking, are configured to: determine, using the classification model, feature importance scores for respective features from the set of features, wherein the feature importance scores indicate an impact of the respective features on the performance level; and determine the ranking based on the feature importance scores. ( Claimed limitations merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 8 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes . Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea from claim 1 Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein the reinforcement learning model is a multinomial Bayesian logistic regression model. (Claimed limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h)) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 9 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes . Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. determining, by a device , a set of features for the machine learning model; determining, by the device and using off-policy evaluation , a performance level of the machine learning model associated with the set of features; determining, by the device and based on the performance level, a ranking of the set of features; generating, by the device and based on the ranking, one or more subsets of features from the set of features; determining, by the device and using the off-policy evaluatio n, performance levels of the machine learning model for respective subsets of features from the one or more subsets of features; selecting, by the device and based on the performance levels, a subset of features from the one or more subsets of features; and obtaining, by the device and via the machine learning mode l, one or more recommendations that are based on input data, wherein the machine learning model uses the subset of feature ( Mental process for evaluating and making judgements for generating an opinion as claimed ) Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). determining, by a device, … determining, by the device and using off-policy evaluation, … ; determining, by the device … ; generating, by the device … ; determining, by the device and using the off-policy evaluation, … ; selecting, by the device … ; and obtaining, by the device and via the machine learning model ... wherein the machine learning model uses the subset of feature ( Claimed limitations merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).) … performance levels of the machine learning model for respective subsets of features from the one or more subsets of features; .. (Claimed limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h)) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 10 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes . Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. wherein determining the ranking of the set of features comprises: determining, using a classification model, feature importance scores for respective features from the set of features, wherein the feature importance scores indicate an importance of the respective features to the performance level; and determining the ranking based on the feature importance scores, wherein the ranking orders the set of features from least importance to greatest importance to the performance level. ( Mental process for evaluating and making judgements for generating an opinion as claimed ) Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). … determining, using a classification model, .. (Claimed limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h)) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use . These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 11 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes . Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea in claim 10 Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wh erein the classification model includes a random forest model. (Claimed limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h)) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 1 2 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes . Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. wherein generating the one or more subsets of features comprises: iteratively removing one or more features from the set of features in an order indicated by the ranking. (Mental process for evaluating and making judgements for generating an opinion; and mathematical concepts for process the making mathematical relationships using probability values associated with portions of data) Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively: iteratively removing one or more features from the set of features in an order indicated by the ranking. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity, e.g. Performing repetitive calculations,) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Second, the limitations directed to insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation are directed to insignificant solution activity for as noted above. The courts have deemed these types of activity as well-known routine and convectional, see evidences noted below: ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 13 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes . Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. wherein the subset of features is associated with a highest performance level from the performance levels. ( Mental process for evaluating and making judgements for generating an opinion as claimed ) Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 14 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes . Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea from claim 9 Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein the off-policy evaluation includes a random holdout direct matching evaluation . (Claimed limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h)) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use . These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 15 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes . Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea in claim 9 Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein the machine learning model is a reinforcement learning model that includes one or more logistic regression models and a classification model that classifies an input based on outputs of the one or more logistic regression models. . (Claimed limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h)) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 16 : Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes . Step 2A Prong 1 : Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. determine, via one or more logistic regression feature selection models , a set of features for a reinforcement learning model; determine, using off-policy evaluation , a performance level of the reinforcement learning model when using the set of features; determine, based on the performance level and using a classification model, a ranking of the set of features, wherein the ranking indicates an order of importance of the set of features on the performance level; generate one or more subsets of features from the set of features based on iteratively removing one or more features, from the set of features, in accordance with the ranking; determine, using the off-policy evaluation , one or more performance levels for respective subsets of features from the one or more subsets of features; select, based on the one or more performance levels, a subset of features from the one or more subsets of features; and provide the subset of features for use with the reinforcement learning model ( Mental process for evaluating and making judgements for generating an opinion; and mathematical concepts for process the making mathematical relationships using probability values associated with portions of data ) Step 2A Prong 2 : Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). determine, via one or more logistic regression feature selection models, … determine, using off-policy evaluation, … ; determine, … and using a classification model, … determine, using the off-policy evaluation, … and provide the subset of features for use with the reinforcement learning model ( Claimed limitations merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).) … determine, using off-policy evaluation, …; determine, …and using a classification model, … determine, using the off-policy evaluation, … (Claimed limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h)) Alternatively: generate one or more subsets of features from the set of features based on iteratively removing one or more features, from the set of features, in accordance with the ranking; (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity, e.g. Performing repetitive calculations,) and provide the subset of features for use with the reinforcement learning model (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity, e.g. Receiving or transmitting data over a network) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B : Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception. Second, the limitations directed to insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation are directed to insignificant solution activity for as noted above. The courts have deemed these types of activity as well-known routine and convectional, see evidences noted below: ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Regrading claim 17, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated, the limitations is similar to those recited in claim 2, and are thus rejected under the same rationale. Regrading claim 18, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated, the limitations is similar to those recited in claim 3, and are thus rejected under the same rationale. Regrading claim 19, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated, the limitations is similar to those recited in claim 4, and are thus rejected under the same rationale. Regrading claim 20, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated, the limitations is similar to those recited in claim 3, and are thus rejected under the same rationale. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception and does not recite, when claim elements are examined or as an ordered combination, that are directed to what have the courts have identified as "significantly more”, than the identified abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 14 is r ejected 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. Regarding claim 14, the term “ random holdout direct matching evaluatio n” is not a term of art the way it is used in the limitation “ wherein the off-policy evaluation includes a random holdout direct matching evaluation ” renders the claim infinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the intended scope of the claim. As it is unclear what is a “ random holdout direct matching evaluation ” and how “ random holdout direct matching evaluation ” is performed, thus the claim limitation is render incoherent. How can direct matching be also random? Or what is random about the hold that that is based on a direct match? It is unclear what evaluation is being performed. Thus, the limitation is considered indefinite. Examiner interprets any sampling method as within the scope of the claim limitation. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim s 1, 3-7, 9-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karnagel et al ( US 2020032735 7, hereinafter ‘Kar’) In view of Kano et at. ( US 20230101650 , hereinafter ‘Kan’) . Regarding independent claim 1 , Kar teaches a system for feature selection for a reinforcement learning model, the system comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to: ([0121] According to one embodiment, the techniques described herein are implemented by one or more special-purpose computing devices. The special-purpose computing devices may be hard-wired to perform the techniques, or may include digital electronic devices such as one or more application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) or field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) that are persistently programmed to perform the techniques, or may include one or more general purpose hardware processors programmed to perform the techniques pursuant to program instructions in firmware, memory, other storage, or a combination … ) determine, via one or more logistic regression feature selection models, a set of features for the reinforcement learning model; ( in [0003] Machine learning (ML) achieves artificial intelligence (AI) by reinforcement learning [ a set of features for the reinforcement learning model ] , which occurs during training of a ML model … [0047] Likewise with a trained logistic regression ML model, each feature has a learned feature coefficient. In an embodiment, scoring function(s) may be sensitive to the learned importance or coefficient of a feature [ determine, via one or more logistic regression feature selection models, a set of features for the reinforcement learning model ] . For example, scoring function(s) may use one learned coefficient when scoring feature F1 and use a different learned coefficient when s