DETAILED ACTION This correspondence is responsive to the Application filed on September 22, 2023. Claims 1-25 are pending in the case, with claims 1, 6, 9, 13, and 20 in independent form. 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. Summary of Detailed Action Claims 6, 9, 14, 21 are objected to regarding informalities. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claims 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claims 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite . Claims 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because t he claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Claims 1-12 and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 1, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ba, Jimmy Lei, et al. in view of Tanaka et al. Claim(s) 4 -5 , 18 -19 and 24 -25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ba, Jimmy Lei, et al. in view of Tanaka et al. as applied to claims 1, 13 and 20 , and further in view of Dennison et al. Claim Objections Claims 6, 9, 14 , 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6, line 10: correct typographical error , change “statics” to “statistics” Claim 9, line 4: correct typographical error, change “fix” to “fixed” Clai m 14, line 4: correct typographical error, change “statics” to “statistics” Claim 21, line 4: correct typographical error, change “statics” to “statistics” Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1-5 are rejec ted under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation for employing two statistics including the average of the subsampled activations and the standard deviation across the plurality of subsampled activations to normalize all of “ the activations ” as a layer normalization. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear which activations “all of the activations” is referencing or not referencing. For example, does “to normalize all of the activations as a layer normalization ” mean to normalize all of the activations of the subsampled activations as a layer normalization? Or does “to normalize all of the activations as a layer normalization ” mean to normalize all activations of the layer as a layer normalization? Or does “to normalize all of the activations as a layer normalization ” mean something else entirely? Applicant may cancel claim 1 or amend claim 1 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. Claims 2-5 depend from claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Claims 6-8 are rejec ted 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. 1 12, the applicant), regards as the invention. Independent claim 6 recites the limitation for employing two statistics including the average of the subsampled activations and the standard deviation across the plurality of subsampled activations to normalize “all of the activations” as a layer nor malization . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear which activations “all of the activations” is referencing or not referencing. For example, does “to normalize all of the activations as a layer normalization ” mean to normalize all of the activations of the subsampled activations as a layer normalization? Or does “to normalize all of the activations as a layer normalization ” mean to normalize all activations of the layer as a layer normalization? Or does “to normalize all of the activations as a layer normalization ” mean something else entirely? Applicant may cancel claim 6 or amend claim 6 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. Claims 7-8 depend from claim 6 and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 6. Claims 9 - 12 are rejec ted 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. 1 12, the applicant), regards as the invention. Independent claim 9 recites the limitation for employing two statistics including the average of the subsampled activations and the standard deviation across the plurality of subsampled activations to normalize “all of the activations” as a layer nor malization . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear which activations “all of the activations” is referencing or not referencing. For example, does “to normalize all of the activations as a layer normalization ” mean to normalize all of the activations of the subsampled activations as a layer normalization? Or does “to normalize all of the activations as a layer normalization ” mean to normalize all activations of the layer as a layer normalization? Or does “to normalize all of the activations as a layer normalization ” mean something else entirely? Applicant may cancel claim 9 or amend claim 9 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. Claims 10-12 depend from claim 9 and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 9. Claims 13-19 are rejec ted 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. 1 12, the applicant), regards as the invention. Independent claim 13 recites the limitation to employ , using the hardware processor, two statistics including the average of the subsampled activations and the standard deviation across the plurality of subsampled activations to normalize “all of the activations” as a layer nor malization . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear which activations “all of the activations” is referencing or not referencing. For example, does “to normalize all of the activations as a layer normalization ” mean to normalize all of the activations of the subsampled activations as a layer normalization? Or does “to normalize all of the activations as a layer normalization ” mean to normalize all activations of the layer as a layer normalization? Or does “to normalize all of the activations as a layer normalization ” mean something else entirely? Applicant may cancel claim 13 or amend claim 13 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. Claims 14-19 depend from claim 13 and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 13. Claims 20-25 are rejec ted 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. 1 12, the applicant), regards as the invention. Independent claim 20 recites the limitation to employ two statistics including the average of the subsampled activations and the standard deviation across the plurality of subsampled activations to normalize “all of the activations” as a layer nor malization . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear which activations “all of the activations” is referencing or not referencing. For example, does “to normalize all of the activations as a layer normalization ” mean to normalize all of the activations of the subsampled activations as a layer normalization? Or does “to normalize all of the activations as a layer normalization ” mean to normalize all activations of the layer as a layer normalization? Or does “to normalize all of the activations as a layer normalization ” mean something else entirely? Applicant may cancel claim 20 or amend claim 20 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. Claims 21-25 depend from claim 20 and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 20. Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Independent claim 9 recites the limitation fo r performing an evaluation sequence employing a sampling procedure that “translates to a Monte Carlo layer normalization” of the training sequence, and employing a Laplace approximation to provide a prediction without subsampling of input features. It is not clear what that “translates to a Monte Carlo layer normalization” means, much less how performing an evaluation sequence translates to a Monte Carlo layer normalization of the training sequence . Applicant may cancel claim 9 or amend claim 9 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. Claims 10-12 depend from claim 9 and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 9. Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Independent claim 9 recites sampling a random set of activations corresponding to fix fraction of overall activations to provide a plurality of subsampled activatio ns, … as a layer normalization; and performing an evaluation sequence employing a sampling procedure … , a nd “ employing a Laplace approximation to provide a prediction without subsampling of input features. ” It is not clear how employing a Laplace approximation provide s a prediction without subsampling of input features. It is further unclear how to provide a random set of “subsampled” activations and employ a Laplace approximation to provide a prediction “ without subsampling ” of input features. Applicant may cancel claim 9 or amend claim 9 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. Claims 10-12 depend from claim 9 and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 9. Claim 8 is rejec ted under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 8 depends from claim 6 and recites wherein computing the average and the standard deviation from the plurality of subsampled activations to normalize all of the activations as the layer normalization comprises: However, claim 8 does not specify or define the variable . Therefore it is not clear what the variable represents or does not represent, which renders the claim indefinite. Applicant may cancel claim 8 or amend claim 8 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 11 is reject ed under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 11 depends from claim 9 and recite s wherein the computing the average and the standard deviation from the plurality of subsampled activations to normalize all of the activations as the layer normalization comprises: However, claim 11 does not specify or define the variable . Therefore it is not clear what the variable represents or does not represent, which renders the claim indefinite. Applicant may cancel claim 11 or amend claim 11 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 17 depends from claim 13 and recite s wherein the computing the average and the standard deviation from the plurality of subsampled activations to normalize all of the activations as the layer normalization comprises: However, claim 17 does not specify or define the variable . Therefore it is not clear what the variable represents or does not represent, which renders the claim indefinite. Applicant may cancel claim 17 or amend claim 17 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 23 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. Claim 23 depends from claim 20 and recite s wherein the computing the average and the standard deviation from the plurality of subsampled activations to normalize all of the activations as the layer normalization comprises: However, claim 23 does not specify or define the variable . Therefore it is not clear what the variable represents or does not represent, which renders the claim indefinite. Applicant may cancel claim 23 or amend claim 23 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 12 is rejec ted under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 12 depends from claim 9 and recites wherein the Laplace approximation is equal to: Howev er, claim 12 does not specify or define any of the variables and terms used in the equations. Therefore, it is not clear what any of the variables and terms represent or do not represent , which renders the claim indefinite . Applicant may cancel claim 12 or amend claim 12 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 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 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter . Independent claim 13 recites a system including “a hardware processor;” and a memory that stores a computer program product, the computer program product of the system includes instructions. However, the originally filed specification at paragraph 140 states that the term “hardware processor” can refer to a processor, memory, software or combinations thereof that cooperate to perform one or more specific tasks . Therefore, the hardware processor recited by claim 13 and described in the specification can be software and the system may only comprise s software and memory storing a computer program product. However, the memory that stores a computer program product is described in the originally filed specification at paragraphs 135-137 , in an open ended manner such that the computer program product can, but does not necessarily, include a computer readable storage medium that is not transitory. Thus, the “system” of claim 13 as described in the originally filed specification may reasonably be interpreted as being software and transitory computer program product, neither of which fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter of a process, machine, article of manufactures and compositions of matter. 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- 1 2 and 20-2 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter at a general, high-level of a method for layer normalization comprising sampling a random set of activations corresponding to fixed fraction of overall activations to provide a plurality of subsampled activations , computing an average across the plurality of subsampled activations , computing a standard deviation across the plurality of subsampled activations , and employing two statistics including the average of the subsampled activations and the standard deviation across the plurality of subsampled activations to normalize all of the activations as a layer normalization , which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I) . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and t he claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1- 12 and 20-25 recite one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter and belong to the statutory class(es) of a process (method claims 1- 12 ) , a machine (system/apparatus claims), and an article of manufacture (non-transitory computer readable media claims 20-25 ). Examiner Note : As discussed above, claims 13-19 do not recite one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. However, if claims 13-19 are amended only to recite systems including hardware components that fall within one of the four categories of patentable subject matter, then claims 13-19 would be rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, as shown below for example only. Claim 1 re cites a method, thus a process and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. However, claim 1 further recites f or layer normalization comprising: sampling a random set of activations corresponding to fixed fraction of overall activations to provide a plurality of subsampled activations; computing an average across the plurality of subsampled activations; computing a standard deviation across the plurality of subsampled activations; and employing two statistics including the average of the subsampled activations and the standard deviation across the plurality of subsampled activations to normalize all of the activations as a layer normalization , which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I) . The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of: A computer implemented method (an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.). in machine learning applications (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea. Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use does not meaningfully limit the claims (MPEP 2106.04(d)) and the combination of additional elements does not provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is ineligible. Claim 2, dependent on claim 1, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of: wherein the sampling of the random set of activations comprises selecting a set of neurons of a neural network having preactivations from a total number of neurons in the neural network (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 3, dependent on claim 1, recites additional mathematical concepts for w herein the computing the average and the standard deviation from the plurality of subsampled activations to normalize all of the activations as the layer normalization comprises : which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I) . The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of: of a neural network ( This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 4, dependent on claim 1 , does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of: wherein the layer normalization is a step of a training sequence for a neural network used in machine learning of a model that controls a vehicle in an autonomous vehicle application (T his additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 5, dependent on claim 1 , does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of: wherein the layer normalization is a step of a training sequence for a neural network used in machine learning of a model in an object identification application ( This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 6 recites a method, thus a process and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. However, claim 6 further recites for layer normalization comprising: performing a sequence that includes sampling a random set of activations corresponding to fix fraction of overall activations to provide a plurality of subsampled activations, computing an average across the plurality of subsampled activations, computing a standard deviation across the plurality of subsampled activations, and employing two statistics including the average of the subsampled activations and the standard deviation across the plurality of subsampled activations to normalize all of the activations as a layer normalization; and performing an evaluation sequence employing a Monte Carlo approximation that includes using a subsample input feature for calculation of normalization statics, and computing the average , which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I) . The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of: A computer implemented method (an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.). in machine learning applications ( This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)). training ( This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)). of running a network forward multiple times with the layer normalization from the training sequence, wherein the average is an output providing a prediction ( This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea. Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use does not meaningfully limit the claims (MPEP 2106.04(d)) and the combination of additional elements does not provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is ineligible. Claim 7, dependent on claim 6, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of: wherein the sampling a random set of activations comprises selecting a set of neurons of a neural network having preactivations from a total number of neurons in the neural network (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 8, dependent on claim 6, recites only additional mathematical concepts for wherein computing the average and the standard deviation from the plurality of subsampled activations to normalize all of the activations as the layer normalization comprises: which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I) . Claim 9 recites a method, thus a process and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. However, claim 9 further recites for layer normalization comprising: performing a sequence that includes sampling a random set of activations corresponding to fix fraction of overall activations to provide a plurality of subsampled activations, computing an average across the plurality of subsampled activations, computing a standard deviation across the plurality of subsampled activations, and employing two statistics including the average of the subsampled activations and the standard deviation across the plurality of subsampled activations to normalize all of the activations as a layer normalization; and performing an evaluation sequence employing a sampling procedure that translates to a Monte Carlo layer normalization of the sequence, and employing a Laplace approximation to provide a prediction without subsampling of input features , which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I) . The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of: A computer implemented method (an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.). in machine learning applications ( This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)). training ( This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea. Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use does not meaningfully limit the claims (MPEP 2106.04(d)) and the combination of additional elements does not provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is ineligible. Claim 10, dependent on claim 9, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of: wherein the sampling of the random set of the activations comprises selecting a set of neurons of a neural network having preactivations from a total number of neurons in the neural network (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 11, dependent on claim 9, recites only additional mathematical concepts for wherein the computing the average and the standard deviation from the plurality of subsampled activations to normalize all of the activations as the layer normalization comprises: which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I) . Claim 12, dependent on claim 9, recites only additional mathematical concepts for wherein the Laplace approximation is equal to: which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I) . Examiner Note : Below rejections of claims 13-19 are for example only . As discussed above, claims 13-19 do not recite one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. However, if claims 13-19 are amended only to recite systems including hardware components that fall within one of the four categories of patentable subject matter, then claims 13-19 would be rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, as shown below for example only . Claim 13 recites a system. However, claim 13 further recites additional mathematical concepts for layer normalization sample, a random set of activations corresponding to fix fraction of overall activations to provide a plurality of subsampled activations; compute, an average across the plurality of subsampled activations; compute, using the hardware processor, a standard deviation across the plurality of subsampled activations; and employ, two statistics including the average of the subsampled activations and the standard deviation across the plurality of subsampled activations to normalize all of the activations as a layer normalization , which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I) . The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of: A system (an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.). in machine learning applications ( This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)). including a hardware processor; and a memory that stores a computer program product, the computer program product of the system includes instructions comprising (an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.). with the hardware processor (an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.). using the hardware processor (an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.). Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea. Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use does not meaningfully limit the claims (MPEP 2106.04(d)) and the combination of additional elements does not provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is ineligible. Claim 14, dependent on claim 13, recites additional mathematical concepts for an evaluation sequence employing a Monte Carlo approximation that includes using a subsample input feature for calculation of normalization statics, and computing the average , which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I) . The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of: to perform with the hardware processor (an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.). of running a network forward multiple times with the layer normalization, wherein the average is an output providing a prediction ( This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 15, dependent on claim 13, recites additional mathematical concepts to perform an evaluation sequence employing a sampling procedure that translates to a Monte Carlo layer normalization, and employing a Laplace approximation to provide a prediction without subsampling of input features , which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I) . The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of: with the hardware processor (an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.). Claim 16, dependent on claim 13, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of: wherein the sampling of the random set of activations comprises selecting a set of neurons of a neural network having preactivations from a total number of neurons in the neural network (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 17, dependent on claim 13, recites additional mathematical concepts for wherein the computing the average and the standard deviation from the plurality of subsampled activations to normalize all of the activations as the layer normalization comprises: which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I) . Claim 18, dependent on claim 13, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of: wherein the layer normalization is a step of a training sequence for a neural network used in machine learning of a model that controls a vehicle in an autonomous vehicle application (T his additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 19, dependent on claim 13, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of: wherein the layer normalization is a step of a training sequence for a neural network used in machine learning of a model in an object identification application (T his additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)) . Claim 20 recites a computer program product, thus an article of manufacture and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. However, claim 20 further recites for layer normalization, sample a random set of activations corresponding to fix fraction of an overall activations to provide a p