DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. 2. Claim s 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court ( Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014 ) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019 )), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is id entified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101. Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to one of the four statutory class, method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example) , we recognize that the limitations “ acquiring basic geological conditions, engineering geological problems, hydrogeological conditions, contained coal quality, deep coal seam conditions, and heat and syngas components of unit coal gasification in a deep coal seam region, and comparing with evaluation criteria of influencing factors of the basic geological conditions, engineering geological problems, hydrogeological conditions, contained coal quality, deep coal seam conditions, and heat and syngas components of unit coal gasification in the deep coal seam region to obtain scores of corresponding influencing factors; determining impact indexes of a geological condition and engineering geological influencing factor, a hydrogeological condition influencing factor, a coal quality influencing factor, a coal seam condition influencing factor and an influencing factor of heat and syngas components of unit coal gasification according to scores of various influencing factors of the deep coal seam; and calculating a comprehensive impact index based on the impact indexes of the various influencing factors of the deep coal seam, and determining the suitability of developing UCG engineering by utilizing a deep coal seam according to the comprehensive impact index ,” are abstract ideas, as they are directed to mental process. Similar rejections are made for dependent claims. Additionally, the dependent claims 4-8 are abstract ideas, as they recite mathematical concept. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application . In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims do not recite additional elements. The claims do not improve the functioning of any machines and do not improve other technology. At most, the claims are an improvement in the abstract idea of determining the suitability of developing UCG engineering according to the comprehensive index. However, improved or new abstract ideas are still abstract ideas, and not eligible under the 101. In short, the claims do not recite sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. In step 2B, the claims do not recite additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. In Summary , the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea . As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Burger et al., US-PGPUB 2019/0186250 Shaikh et al., US-PGPUB 2013/0312950 Kaplan et al., US-PGPUB 2016/0045841 Benson et al., US-PGPUB 2022/0291650 Liu et al., US-PGPUB 2016/0123128 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7922 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 11-4 . 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 Arleen Vazquez can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-2619 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /HYUN D PARK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857