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. Detailed Action This communication is in response to the application filed on 0 8 / 2 8 /202 3 in which Claims 1- 2 are presented for examination. Drawings The applicant’s drawings submitted on 0 8 / 2 8 /202 3 are acceptable for examination purposes. Objections Claim s 1 -2 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1-2 recite formula ( 3 ) , formula ( 4 ) , formula (5), formula (6), formula (7), formula (8), formula (9). It is unclear of wh ich formula these numbers are referred to in the claims. Appropriated correction required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1 – 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The claims identify inputs, models , ant formula mathematics but does not explain what the result of the computations produces in terms of how a control system is physically altered under specific circumstances. The claims do not identify if this is a system on an aircraft or a computer performing calculations in a design lab. Therefore, one skilled in the art would not be able to program an airplane control system to operate under a known condition. The flight envelope may be takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, or landing. Thus, the claims are not clear to one of ordinary skill in the art how the method would divid e an aero-engine data set . 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- 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention are directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1 - 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mathematical concepts formulas or calculations without significantly more. The claims fail the first prong of the 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. The claims " A generative adversarial multi-head attention neural network self-learning method for aero-engine data reconstruction, comprising the following steps: step S1: preprocessing a sample 1) dividing an aero-engine data set with a missing value into a training sample set and a test sample set, wherein the training sample set is used for training a model, and the test sample set is used for checking the model after training … " The dependent claims are further calculations or formulas that are directed to the operation of models. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not identify how the calculations or formulas are applied to an operation of an engine . The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not identify structure that collects the data, structure that performs the calculations or formulas, or structure that is affected by the input and hot the structure is changed based upon the variable . Thus, the claims do not identify how an engines operation is changed or altered based upon a specifically identified set or circumstances. Therefore, the claims fail the second prong of the 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. The dependent claim 2 included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These include. US 20240185040 A1 – WAN PROVIDES aero-engine fault diagnosis, and in particular to an aero-engine fault diagnosis method based on 5G edge computing and deep learning. US 20230141864 A1 QIN present s useful life (RUL) prediction for aero-engines, and in particular to a method for predicting a RUL of an aero-engine based on an automatic differential learning deep neural network (ADLDNN). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT EVANS DESROSIERS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5438 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday -Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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. I f attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT William Korzuch can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7589 . 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. /EVANS DESROSIERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491