DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This office action is in response to the application filed on 11/08 /2023. This application is a continuation (CON) of the application 18/205442, and has a foreign priority of the application JP2022-095808 filed on 06/14/2022. Claims 1-1 3 are currently pending in this application. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/08 /2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Examiner’s Note Applicants are suggested to include information from figures 7 and 8 with related text into the claims to provide a better condition for an allowance. Claim Objections Claims 2 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “ The test familiar determination device according to claim …”, which appears to be The test familiar ity determination device according to claim …”. 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 . Claim s 1-1 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 (claims 12 and 1 3 include similar limitations) recites : “… estimate … a required trial quantity of a test wherein … to be required for the subject to become familiar with a test undergone by the subject …”; however, it is not clear (1) whether the term, “a test”, included in two different locations are the same or not; (2) how to define whether it is familiar or not – or it is not clear to define a boundary of the limitations ; “… determine whether the subject is familiar with the test , based on the required trial quantity and history information of the test …”, however, it is not clear how the determination of the test can use the history information of the test (e.g., there is not a history information of a test before the test is completed) - or it is not clear to define a boundary of the limitations. Claims 2-11 depend from the claim 1, and are analyzed and rejected accordingly. Claim 2 recites “… the history information is an actual trial quantity of the te st …”, however, it is not clear how to define a test trial as an actual trial or not (e.g., an imagined trial). Claim 3 recites “… wherein history information includes at least one of a number of times of the test undergone by the subject and a length of time of the test …”, however, it is not clear how to define a number of times of the test or a length of time of the test during the process of the test (e.g., there is not possible to define time information of a test before the test is completed) - or it is not clear to define a boundary of the limitations. Double Patenting The non - statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non - statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp . Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of co-pending Application 18/ 205442 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claims 1-1 3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, 11 and 12 of co-pending Application 18/504566 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claims 1-1 3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-12 of co-pending Application 18/504569 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Current application No. 18/504577 Reference application No. 18/205442 Claim 1 : A test familiarity determination device in communication with client device, the test familiarity determination device comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: acquire attribute data indicating an attribute of a subject from an input device; estimate, based on the attribute data, a required trial quantity of a test, wherein the required trial quantity is a trial quantity to be required for the subject to become familiar with a test undergone by the subject; determine whether the subject is familiar with the test , based on the required trial quantity and history information of the test undergone by the subject ; and output , to the client device, a test result and validity of the test result in case the test result is determined to be valid. Claim 1 : A determination device comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: acquire attribute data indicating an attribute of a subject; estimate a required trial quantity , which is a trial quantity to be required for the subject to become familiar with a test undergone by the subject , based on the attribute data ; and determine whether or not the subject is familiar with the test , based on the required trial quantity. Claim 4 : The test … wherein the test result is time-series results of the test that the subject underwent in the past ( equivalent to the history information ) . Claim 8 : The determination device … display or output , by audio, a determination result of validity of the test based on the determination result of whether or not the subject is familiar with the test. Claim 2: The test familiar determination device according to claim 1, wherein the history information is an actual trial quantity of the test undergone by the subject. Claim 3 : determination device … based on … a test result of the test, and Claim 4 : The determination device according to claim 3, wherein the test result is time-series results of the test that the subject underwent in the past (equivalent to previously done or actual trial quantity of the test ) . Claim 3 : The test familiar determination device according to claim 2 , wherein the history information includes at least one of a number of times of the test undergone by the subject and a length of time of the test undergone by the subject . Claim 4 : The determination device according to claim 3, wherein the test result is time-series results (equivalent to the results of the length of time of the test undergone ) of the test that the subject underwent in the past. Claim 4 : The test familiarity determination device according to claim 1 , wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: estimate the required trial quantity based on the attribute data and an inference model, wherein the inference model is a model which learned a relation between data based on the attribute data and the required trial quantity. Claim 2 : The determination device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to estimate the required trial quantity based on the attribute data and an inference model, and wherein the inference model is a model which learned a relation between data based on the attribute data and the required trial quantity. Claim 5 : The test familiarity determination device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: estimate the required trial quantity based on the attribute data, an inference model, and the test result, and wherein the inference model is a model which learned, by machine learning , a relatio n between data based on the attribute dat a and the test result and t he required trial quantity. Claim 3 : determination device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to estimate the required trial quantity based on the attribute data, an inference model, and a test result of the test, and wherein the inference model is a model which learned, by machine learning, a relation between data based on the attribute data and the test result and the required trial quantity . Claim 6 : The test familiarity determination device according to claim 3 , wherein the test result is time-series results of the test that the subject underwent in the past . Claim 4 : The determination device according to claim 3, wherein the test result is time-series results of the test that the subject underwent in the past. Claim 7 : The test familiarity determination device according to claim 1 , wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: estimate the required trial quantity from the attribute data, based on a table in which each o f candidates for the attribute is associated with the required trial quantity corresponding to the each of the candidates . Claim 5 : The determination device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to estimate the required trial quantity from the attribute data, based on a table in which each of candidates for the attribute is associated with the required trial quantity corresponding to the each of the candidates. Claim 8 : The test familiarity determination device according to claim 1 , wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: determine that the test result of the test is invalid in case the determination result indicates that the subject is not familiar with the test. Claim s 6 and 7 : The determination device according to claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine that the test result of the test is invalid if the determination result indicates that the subject is not familiar with the test. Claim 9 : The test familiarity determination device according to claim 1 , wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: output , to the client device, advice information for a manager of the subject to perform a decision-making regarding whether to continue to conduct the test. Claim 11 : The determination device according to claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is configured to output advice information for a manager of the subject to perform a decision-making regarding whether or not to continue to conduct the test. Claim 10 : The test familiarity determination device according to claim 1 , wherein the least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: display , to the client device, a determination result of validity of the test based on the determination result of whether the subject is familiar with the test. Claim s 6 and 8 : The determination device according to claim 6, wherein the least one processor is configured to display or output, by audio, a determination result of validity of the test based on the determination result of whether or not the subject is familiar with the test. Claim 11 : The test familiarity determination device according to claim 1 , wherein the least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: output to the client device, by audio, a determination result of validity of the test based on the determination result of whether the subject is familiar with the test. Claim s 6 and 8 : The determination device according to claim 6, wherein the least one processor is configured to display or output, by audio, a determination result of validity of the test based on the determination result of whether or not the subject is familiar with the test. Claims 12 and 13 have similar limitations with the claims 9 and 10 of the reference application 18/ 205442 , and they are analyzed and rejected accordingly (see the above table for the matching claim limitations). Claims 1-1 3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims “ 1 , 3 and 4” , “3 and 4”, 4, 2-9, 11, 12 , respectively , of co-pending Application 18/50456 6 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claims 1-1 3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims “1, 3 and 5”, “3 and 5”, 5, 3-12 , respectively , of co-pending Application 18/5045 69 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1-1 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al. (US 2022/0148729 A1) . As per claim 1 , Yamamoto teaches a test familiarity determination device in communication with client device , the test familiarity determination device [see figs. 1, 1 0 ; paras. 0089-0091 ] comprising : at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to : acquire attribute data indicating an attribute of a subject from an input device ; estimate , based on the attribute data , a required trial quantity of a test , wherein the required trial quantity is a trial quantity to be required for the subject to become familiar with a test undergone by the subject [figs. 1, 3, 8; par. 0030, lines 1-6; par. 0038, lines 1-7; par. 0039, lines 1-7; par. 0040, lines 1-7; par. 0056, lines 1-8; par. 0068, lines 1-8 of Yamamoto teaches to acquire attribute data (e.g., the feature quantity) indicating an attribute of a subject (e.g., the operation information of a communication terminal) from an input device (e.g., the communication terminal or the log information storage unit) ; estimate, based on the attribute data (e.g., the feature quantity) , a required trial quantity (e.g., the estimation models have to be run) of a test, wherein the required trial quantity is a trial quantity to be required for the subject to become familiar with a test undergone by the subject (e.g., the quantity, such as two/three, of the estimation models have to be connected in series to construct an estimation model for the estimation process based on feature quantities)]; determine whether the subject is familiar with the test, based on the required trial quantity and history information of the test undergone by the subject [figs. 1, 3 , 4 ; par. 0039, lines 1-7; par. 0040, lines 1-7; par. 0048, lines 1-13; par. 0075, lines 1-12; par. 0076, lines 1-4 of Yamamoto teaches to determine whether the subject is familiar with the test, based on the required trial quantity (e.g., the estimation models have to be run) and history information (e.g., information of a certain past period of time) of the test undergone by the subject ]; and output, to the client device, a test result and validity of the test result in case the test result is determined to be valid [fig s . 8, 10; par. 0075, lines 1-12; par. 0076, lines 1-4; par. 0078, lines 1-11; par. 0097, lines 4-8 of Yamamoto teaches to output, to the client device (e.g., output by a display, a speaker or an LED lamp), a test result and validity of the test result (e.g., determining that it is necessary to perform more detailed state estimation) in case the test result is determined to be valid]. As per claim 2 , Yamamoto teaches the test familiar determination device according to claim 1. Yamamoto further teaches wherein the history information is an actual trial quantity of the test undergone by the subject [figs. 3, 4; par. 0048, lines 1-13 of Yamamoto teaches wherein the history information (e.g., information of a certain past period of time) is an actual trial quantity (e.g., previously done or not expected the actual trial quantity) of the test undergone by the subject]. As per claim 3 , Yamamoto teaches the test familiar determination device according to claim 2. Yamamoto further teaches wherein the history information includes at least one of a number of times of the test undergone by the subject and a length of time of the test undergone by the subject [figs. 4, 5; par. 00 45 , lines 1- 15; par. 0048, lines 1-13 of Yamamoto teaches wherein the history information includes at least one of a number of times of the test undergone by the subject and a length of time (e.g., the certain past period of time) of the test undergone by the subject – see also rejections to the claim 1 ]. As per claim 4 , Yamamoto teaches the test familiarity determination device according to claim 1. Yamamoto further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to estimate the required trial quantity based on the attribute data and an inference model, and wherein the inference model is a model which learned a relation between data based on the attribute data and the required trial quantity [figs. 6, 8, 9; par. 0057, lines 1-7; par. 0072, lines 1-11; par. 0075, lines 1-12 of Yamamoto teaches to estimate the required trial quantity (e.g., the estimation models have to be run) based on the attribute data (e.g., the feature quantity) and an inference model (e.g., the description estimation model), and wherein the inference model is a model which learned a relation between data based on the attribute data (e.g., the feature quantity) and the required trial quantity (e.g., the estimation models have to be run)]. As per claim 5 , Yamamoto teaches the test familiarity determination device according to claim 1. Yamamoto further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to estimate the required trial quantity based on the attribute data, an inference model, and a test result of the test, and wherein the inference model is a model which learned, by machine learning, a relation between data based on the attribute data and the test result and the required trial quantity [figs. 1, 3, 8; par. 0026, lines 1-4; par. 0057, lines 1-7; par. 0072, lines 1-11; par. 0075, lines 1-12 of Yamamoto teaches to estimate the required trial quantity (e.g., the estimation models have to be run) based on the attribute data (e.g., the feature quantity), an inference model (e.g., the description estimation model), and a test result (e.g., how detailed state estimation, or estimation granularity) of the test, and wherein the inference model is a model which learned, by machine learning, a relation between data based on the attribute data and the test result and the required trial quantity]. As per claim 6 , Yamamoto teaches the test familiarity determination device according to claim 3. Yamamoto further teaches wherein the test result is time-series results of the test that the subject underwent in the past [par. 0071, lines 1-8; par. 0081, lines 1-6 of Yamamoto teaches wherein the test result is time-series results of the test that the subject underwent in the past (e.g., in the previous stage)]. As per claim 7 , Yamamoto teaches the test familiarity determination device according to claim 1. Yamamoto further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured execute the instructions to estimate the required trial quantity from the attribute data, based on a table in which each of candidates for the attribute is associated with the required trial quantity corresponding to the each of the candidates [par. 0104, lines 1-7 of Yamamoto teaches to estimate the required trial quantity from the attribute data, based on a table in which each of candidates for the attribute (e.g., the input information) is associated with the required trial quantity (e.g., the output information) corresponding to the each of the candidates (e.g., the input information) – see also rejections to the claim 1]. As per claim 8 , Yamamoto teaches the test familiarity determination device according to claim 1 . Yamamoto further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine that the test result of the test is invalid in case the determination result indicates that the subject is not familiar with the test [par. 0075, lines 1-12; par. 0076, lines 1-4; par. 0078, lines 1-11 of Yamamoto teaches to determine that the test result of the test is invalid (e.g., it is necessary to perform more detailed state estimation) in case the determination result indicates that the subject is not familiar with the test (e.g., determining that the granularity of the state estimation is not fine)]. As per claim 9 , Yamamoto teaches the test familiarity determination device according to claim 1 . wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to output , to the client device, advice information for a manager of the subject to perform a decision-making regarding whether to continue to conduct the test [par. 0097, lines 4-8; par. 0104, lines 1-7 of Yamamoto teaches to output advice information for a manager (e.g., output for the management) of the subject to perform a decision-making regarding whether to continue to conduct the test (e.g., to overwritten, update, additionally written, etc.)]. As per claim 10 , Yamamoto teaches the test familiarity determination device according to claim 1. wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to display, to the client device, a determination result of validity of the test based on the determination result of whether the subject is familiar with the test [f ig. 10; par. 0075, lines 1-12; par. 0076, lines 1-4; par. 0078, lines 1-11; par. 0097, lines 4-8 of Yamamoto teaches to display (e.g., output by a display, a speaker or an LED lamp) , to the client device, a determination result of validity of the test (e.g., determining that it is necessary to perform more detailed state estimation) based on the determination result of whether the subject is familiar with the test (e.g., whether or not the granularity of the state estimation is fine) – see also the rejections to the claim 1] . As per claim 11 , Yamamoto teaches the test familiarity determination device according to claim 1. wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to output to the client device, by audio, a determination result of validity of the test based on the determination result of whether the subject is familiar with the test [f ig. 10; par. 0075, lines 1-12; par. 0076, lines 1-4; par. 0078, lines 1-11; par. 0097, lines 4-8 of Yamamoto teaches to output to the client device , by audio (e.g., output by a display, a speaker or an LED lamp), a determination result (e.g., determining that it is necessary to perform more detailed state estimation) of validity of the test based on the determination result of whether the subject is familiar with the test (e.g., whether or not the granularity of the state estimation is fine) – see also rejections to the claim 1] . Claim s 12 and 1 3 are method and medium claims that correspond to the device claim 1, and are analyzed and rejected accordingly. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MAUNG T LWIN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7845 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3739 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MAUNG T LWIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495