DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 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) 1-3, 6-16 , and 19-20 FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a method for target identification, and therefore, is a method. Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation s: determining at least two regions of interest of the subject based on the scanning data determining at least one abnormal region of interest in the at least two regions of interest in accordance with a predetermined anomaly detection rule determining a target based on the at least one abnormal region of interest Th ese limitation s , as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the determining target by analyzing two regions of interest in the data based on a predetermined anomaly detection rule . The determination of the region of interest can be performed by observing scanning data and selecting two region of interest . Moreover, a physician can perform observation and analyzing scanning data such as image, make decision from observing whether each region of interest with rules of anomaly detection rule, and draws conclusion that whether ROI is abnormal region and determines that ROI to be target in mental framework. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “ acquiring scanning data of a subject, wherein the scanning data comprise the data acquired from magnetic resonance imaging of a brain of the subject. ” Acquiring scanning data is data gathering and is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. The use of magnetic resonance imaging does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 1 is ineligible. Claim s 2 -3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a method for target identification, and therefore, is a method. Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation s: Of claim 2, d etermining the at least two regions of interest of the subject based on a volume standard brain template according to the scanning data. Of claim 3, d etermining the at least two regions of interest of the subject based on a cortical standard brain template according to the scanning data. Th ese limitation s , as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the determining ROIs based on mental comparison of brain images to a volume standard brain template/cortical standard brain template. The determination of the region of interest can be performed by observing scanning data and make a comparison analysis with standard template and mentally make a judgement where the ROIs would be located in the scanning data. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim s 2-3 are ineligible. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a method for target identification, and therefore, is a method. Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation s: determining whether the at least one abnormal region of interest is located in a modulation brain region or not if the at least one abnormal region of interest is located in the modulation brain region, determining a center of the at least one abnormal region of interest as the target or determining a region with the center of the at least one abnormal region of interest as a spherical center, with a predetermined target radius as a first target region of interest, determining the target based on a position of the first target region of interest; if the at least one abnormal region of interest is not located in the modulation brain region , determining a connectivity of the at least one abnormal region of interest with other regions of interest in the at least two regions of interest, and the region of interest among the other regions of interest having the connectivity with the at least one abnormal region of interest that exceeds a predetermined connectivity threshold and which is located in the modulation region as a second target candidate; and determining a center of the second target candidate as the target, or determining a region with the center of the second target candidate as a spherical center and with the predetermined target radius as a second target region of interest, determining the target based on a position of the second target region of interest . Th ese limitation s , as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the determining target by analyzing two regions of interest in the data based on a predetermined anomaly detection rule . Determining whether ROI is in modulation region or not can be performed by observation of the image and determining in metal frame whether ROI falls within the modulation region. When the ROI is in the modulation region, physician can determine a center of region, by using geometrical property of a center of a circle, and with the predetermined radius, one can determine the target to be circle with predetermined radius from the center of the ROI. This can all be performed by mental observation, using mathematical definition of a circle and one can set radius to cover the ROI and draw a circle with the radius and determine to be target, which can be also performed by drawing a circle in the ROI in the image. Moreover, when the ROI is in other region that the claimed modulation region by observation of the image, physician can determine connectivity of two regions by observing the data upon activation , recognizing two distinct regions, and drawing a line between two regions , and determine the ROI to be target candidate , which can be done by drawing a line in the image showing activation. Subsequently, physician can determine a center of region, by using geometrical property/definition of a center of a circle, and with the predetermined radius, the target can be determined to be circle with predetermined radius from the center of the ROI. This can all be performed by mental observation, using mathematical definition of a circle and radius of the circle, and drawing in the image, in mental framework with aid of pen/paper . That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 6 is ineligible. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a method for target identification, and therefore, is a method. Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation s: determining a brain structure subdivision in which the target is located based on a disease type of the subject; determining an intersection of the at least one abnormal region of interest or the region of interest whose connectivity with the abnormal region of interest satisfies a predetermined connectivity threshold condition with the brain structure subdivision as a target candidate; and determining a center of the target candidate as the target, or, determining a region with the center of the target candidate as a spherical center and with a predetermined target radius as a target region of interest, and determining the target based on a position of the target region of interest Th ese limitation s , as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the determining target by analyzing two regions of interest in the data based on a predetermined anomaly detection rule . Determining a brain subdivision based on the disease type can be done by looking up database (i.e. library, reference) of brain subdivision activation for different types of disease (i.e. brain regions of activation in Alzheimer’s disease, brain regions activated with depression) . Once the subdivision is determined, physician can determine an intersection of the determined subdivision with the ROI whose connectivity meets a desired condition, based on observation, comparison of the connectivity, and drawing a conclusion whether condition is met , and draw a n intersection line between the subdivision and the ROI with desired connectivity, and conclude that the intersection is a target. The physician can determine a center of region, by using geometrical definition of a center of a circle, and with the predetermined radius, one can determine the target to be circle with predetermined radius from the center of the ROI. This can all be performed by mental observation, using mathematical definition of a circle and radius, and one can set radius to cover the ROI and draw a circle with the radius and determine to be target, which can be also performed by drawing a circle in the ROI in the image with aid of pen/paper. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 7 is ineligible. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception are discussed above in the claim 1 rejection. Claim 8 recites the following elements: “ wherein the magnetic resonance imaging comprises structural magnetic resonance imaging of the bran and/or task-based functional MRI and/or resting state functional MRI. This claim element is a mere data gathering step which amounts to a pre -solution insignificant activity. This p re -solution insignificant activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor does it contain an inventive step. In light of above, claim 8 is ineligible. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a target identification device, and therefore, is an apparatus. Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation s: Configured to determine at least two regions of interest of the subject based on the scanning data Configured to determine at least one abnormal region of interest in the at least two regions of interest in accordance with a predetermined anomaly detection rule Configured to determine a target based on the at least one abnormal region of interest Th ese limitation s , as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the determining target by analyzing two regions of interest in the data based on a predetermined anomaly detection rule . The determination of the region of interest can be performed by observing scanning data and selecting two region of interest . Moreover, a physician can perform observation and analyzing scanning data such as image, make decision from observing whether each region of interest with rules of anomaly detection rule, and draws conclusion that whether ROI is abnormal region and determines that ROI to be target in mental framework. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “ a data acquisition unit configured to acquire scanning data of a subject, wherein the scanning data comprise the data acquired from magnetic resonance imaging of a brain of the subject. ” “a processing unit,” “an anomaly detection unit,” and “a target identification unit” Acquiring scanning data is data gathering and is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. The use of magnetic resonance imaging does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception. Use of processor to perform the judicial exception is recited at a high-level generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining region of interest and based on the judgement, determining a target) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 9 is ineligible. Claim s 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception are discussed above in the claim 1 rejection. Claim s 10-11 recite the following elements: “at least one processor; and a storage device having at least one program stored thereon, wherein the at least one program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to execute the method according to claim 1.” “A computer readable storage medium, having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by at least one processor, executes the method according to claim 1.” The use of processor , a storage device and a computer readable storage medium are recited with high generality of genetic computer element performing the judicial exception set forth in claim 1, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception. These pre and post-solution insignificant activities does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor does it contain an inventive step. In light of above, claim s 10-11 are ineligible. Claim 1 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a neuromodulation apparatus, and therefore, is an apparatus. Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation s: determining at least two regions of interest of the subject based on the scanning data determining at least one abnormal region of interest in the at least two regions of interest in accordance with a predetermined anomaly detection rule determining a target based on the at least one abnormal region of interest Th ese limitation s , as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the determining target by analyzing two regions of interest in the data based on a predetermined anomaly detection rule . The determination of the region of interest can be performed by observing scanning data and selecting two region of interest . Moreover, a physician can perform observation and analyzing scanning data such as image, make decision from observing whether each region of interest with rules of anomaly detection rule, and draws conclusion that whether ROI is abnormal region and determines that ROI to be target in mental framework. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “ acquiring scanning data of a subject, wherein the scanning data comprise the data acquired from magnetic resonance imaging of a brain of the subject. ” Acquiring scanning data is data gathering and is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. The use of magnetic resonance imaging does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 1 2 is ineligible. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception are discussed above in the claim 1 2 rejection. Claim 13 recites the following elements: “ wherein the preset neuromodulation solution comprises at least one of deep brain electrical stimulation, transcranial electrical stimulation, electroconvulsive therapy, electrical stimulation based on cortical brain electrodes, transcranial magnetic stimulation, focused ultrasound neuromodulation, magnetic resonance guided high-intensity focused ultrasound therapy modulation and photobiomodulation therapy.” This claim element is a mere list of possible treatments which amounts to a post -solution insignificant activity , and is recited without actual treatment is performed to produce an outcome. This p ost -solution insignificant activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor does it contain an inventive step. In light of above, claim 13 is ineligibl e. Claim s 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a neuromodulation apparatus, and therefore, is an apparatus. Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation s: Of claim 14, determining the at least two regions of interest of the subject based on a volume standard brain template according to the scanning data. Of claim 15, determining the at least two regions of interest of the subject based on a cortical standard brain template according to the scanning data. Th ese limitation s , as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the determining ROIs based on mental comparison of brain images to a volume standard brain template/cortical standard brain template. The determination of the region of interest can be performed by observing scanning data and make a comparison analysis with standard template and mentally make a judgement where the ROIs would be located in the scanning data. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim s 14-15 are ineligible. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a neuromodulation apparatus, and therefore, is an apparatus. Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation s: determining whether the at least one abnormal region of interest is located in a modulation brain region or not if the at least one abnormal region of interest is located in the modulation brain region, determining a center of the at least one abnormal region of interest as the target or determining a region with the center of the at least one abnormal region of interest as a spherical center, with a predetermined target radius as a first target region of interest, determining the target based on a position of the first target region of interest; if the at least one abnormal region of interest is not located in the modulation brain region, determining a connectivity of the at least one abnormal region of interest with other regions of interest in the at least two regions of interest, and the region of interest among the other regions of interest having the connectivity with the at least one abnormal region of interest that exceeds a predetermined connectivity threshold and which is located in the modulation region as a second target candidate; and determining a center of the second target candidate as the target, or determining a region with the center of the second target candidate as a spherical center and with the predetermined target radius as a second target region of interest, determining the target based on a position of the second target region of interest. Th ese limitation s , as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the determining target by analyzing two regions of interest in the data based on a predetermined anomaly detection rule . Determining whether ROI is in modulation region or not can be performed by observation of the image and determining in metal frame whether ROI falls within the modulation region. When the ROI is in the modulation region, physician can determine a center of region, by using geometrical property of a center of a circle, and with the predetermined radius, one can determine the target to be circle with predetermined radius from the center of the ROI. This can all be performed by mental observation, using mathematical definition of a circle and one can set radius to cover the ROI and draw a circle with the radius and determine to be target, which can be also performed by drawing a circle in the ROI in the image. Moreover, when the ROI is in other region that the claimed modulation region by observation of the image, physician can determine connectivity of two regions by observing the data upon activation, recognizing two distinct regions, and drawing a line between two regions, and determine the ROI to be target candidate, which can be done by drawing a line in the image showing activation. Subsequently, physician can determine a center of region, by using geometrical property/definition of a center of a circle, and with the predetermined radius, the target can be determined to be circle with predetermined radius from the center of the ROI. This can all be performed by mental observation, using mathematical definition of a circle and radius of the circle, and drawing in the image, in mental framework with aid of pen/paper. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 18 is ineligible. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a neuromodulation device , and therefore, is an apparatus. Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation s: determining a brain structure subdivision in which the target is located based on a disease type of the subject; determining an intersection of the at least one abnormal region of interest or the region of interest whose connectivity with the abnormal region of interest satisfies a predetermined connectivity threshold condition with the brain structure subdivision as a target candidate; and determining a center of the target candidate as the target, or, determining a region with the center of the target candidate as a spherical center and with a predetermined target radius as a target region of interest, and determining the target based on a position of the target region of interest Th ese limitation s , as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the determining target by analyzing two regions of interest in the data based on a predetermined anomaly detection rule . Determining a brain subdivision based on the disease type can be done by looking up database (i.e. library, reference) of brain subdivision activation for different types of disease (i.e. brain regions of activation in Alzheimer’s disease, brain regions activated with depression). Once the subdivision is determined, physician can determine an intersection of the determined subdivision with the ROI whose connectivity meets a desired condition, based on observation, comparison of the connectivity, and drawing a conclusion whether condition is met, and draw an intersection line between the subdivision and the ROI with desired connectivity, and conclude that the intersection is a target. The physician can determine a center of region, by using geometrical definition of a center of a circle, and with the predetermined radius, one can determine the target to be circle with predetermined radius from the center of the ROI. This can all be performed by mental observation, using mathematical definition of a circle and radius, and one can set radius to cover the ROI and draw a circle with the radius and determine to be target, which can be also performed by drawing a circle in the ROI in the image with aid of pen/paper. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 19 is ineligible. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception are discussed above in the claim 1 2 rejection. Claim 20 recites the following elements: “ wherein the magnetic resonance imaging comprises structural magnetic resonance imaging of the bran and/or task-based functional MRI and/or resting state functional MRI. This claim element is a mere data gathering step which amounts to a pre -solution insignificant activity. This p re -solution insignificant activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor does it contain an inventive step. In light of above, claim 20 is ineligible. Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 11 currently recites “A computer readable storage medium.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called computer-readable storage medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments maybe amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” (e.g. a non-transitory computer readable storage medium) to the claim. Double Patenting The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim s 1-4 and 8-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim s 1-4, 8-15, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,784 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons . Instant Application 18/574,323 Claims-12/27/2023 U.S. Patent No. 12,193,784 1. A method for target identification, comprising: acquiring scanning data of a subject, wherein the scanning data comprise the data acquired from magnetic resonance imaging of the brain of the subject; determining at least two regions of interest of the subject based on the scanning data; determining at least one abnormal region of interest in the at least two regions of interest in accordance with a predetermined anomaly detection rule ; and determining a target based on the at least one abnormal region of interest. 2. The method according to claim 1, wherein determining the at least two regions of interest of the subject based on the scanning data, comprises: determining the at least two regions of interest of the subject based on a volume standard brain template according to the scanning data. 3. The method according to claim 1, wherein determining the at least two regions of interest of the subject based on the scanning data, comprises: determining the at least two regions of interest of the subject based on a cortical standard brain template according to the scanning data. 4. The method according to claim 1, wherein determining the at least two regions of interest of the subject based on the scanning data, comprises: determining connectivity between each two voxels in the scanning data to form a brain connectivity matrix corresponding to the scanning data; and forming the at least two regions of interest based on a brain region template of a standard brain and the brain connectivity matrix. 8. The method according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic resonance imaging comprises: structural magnetic resonance imaging of the brain, and/or, task-based functional magnetic resonance imaging, and/or, resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging. 9 . A target identification device, comprising: a data acquisition unit, configured to acquire scanning data of the subject, wherein the scanning data comprise data acquired from magnetic resonance imaging of the brain of the subject; a processing unit, configured to determine at least two regions of interest of the subject based on the scanning data; an anomaly detection unit, configured to determine at least one abnormal region of interest in the at least two regions of interest based on a predetermined anomaly detection rule; and a target identification unit, configured to determine a target based on the at least one anomaly region of interest. 10. An electronic apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and a storage device having at least one program stored thereon, wherein the at least one program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to execute the method according to claim 1. 11. A computer readable storage medium, having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by at least one processor, executes the method according to claim 1. 12. (Currently Amended) A neuromodulation apparatus, configured to make neuromodulation on a target of a subject in accordance with a preset neuromodulation solution; wherein the target is determined by a method for target identification, comprising: acquiring scanning data of a subject, wherein the scanning data comprise the data acquired from magnetic resonance imaging of a brain of the subject; determining at least two regions of interest of the subject based on the scanning data; determining at least one abnormal region of interest in the at least two regions of interest in accordance with a predetermined anomaly detection rule ; and determining a target based on the at least one abnormal region of interest. 13. (Original) The apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the preset neuromodulation solution comprises at least one of: deep brain electrical stimulation; transcranial electrical stimulation; electroconvulsive therapy; electrical stimulation based on cortical brain electrodes; transcranial magnetic stimulation; focused ultrasound neuromodulation; magnetic resonance guided high-intensity focused ultrasound therapy neuromodulation; and photobiomodulation therapy. 14. (New) The neuromodulation apparatus according to claim 12, wherein determining the at least two regions of interest of the subject based on the scanning data, comprises: determining the at least two regions of interest of the subject based on a volume standard brain template according to the scanning data. 15. (New) The neuromodulation apparatus according to claim 12, wherein determining the at least two regions of interest of the subject based on the scanning data, comprises: determining the at least two regions of interest of the subject based on a cortical standard brain template according to the scanning data. 16. (New) The neuromodulation apparatus according to claim 12, wherein determining the at least two regions of interest of the subject based on the scanning data, comprises: determining connectivity between each two voxels in the scanning data to form a brain connectivity matrix corresponding to the scanning data; and forming the at least two regions of interest based on a brain region template of a standard brain and the brain connectivity matrix. 1. A method of target identification, comprising: acquiring scanning data of a subject, wherein the scanning data comprise data acquired from magnetic resonance imaging of a brain of the subject; determining at least two brain regions of the subject based on the scanning data, each brain region comprising at least one voxel, wherein each brain region is composed of voxels with the same function; determining at least one target brain region corresponding to a disease type in the at least two brain regions based on the disease type of the subject; and determining a target located in the at least one target brain region according to a predetermined target identification rule. 2. (Original) The method according to claim 1, wherein determining the at least two brain regions of the subject based on the scanning data comprises: determining the at least two brain regions of the subject based on the scanning data based on a volumetric standard brain template. 3. (Original) The method according to claim 1, wherein determining the at least two brain regions of the subject based on the scanning data comprises: determining at least two brain regions of the subject based on the scanning data based on a cortical standard brain template. 4. (Original) The method according to claim 1, wherein determining the at least two brain regions of the subject based on the scanning data, each brain region comprising at least one voxel, comprises: determining a connectivity between each two voxels in the scanning data to form a brain connectivity matrix corresponding to the scanning data; and forming the at least two brain regions based on a brain region template for a standard brain and the brain connectivity matrix. 8. (Original) The method according to claim 1, wherein the determining the target located in the at least one target brain region based on the predetermined target identification rule comprises: determining a structural subdivision of the brain in which the target is located based on the disease type; determining an intersection of the at least one target brain regions with the brain structural subdivision; and determining the target in the intersection. 9. (Original) The method according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic resonance imaging comprises: structural magnetic resonance imaging, and/or task-based functional magnetic resonance imaging, and/or resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging. 10. A target identification device, comprising: a data acquisition circuit, configured to acquire a scanning data of a subject, the scanning data comprising data acquired from magnetic resonance imaging of the subject's brain; a process or, configured to determine at least two brain regions of the subject from the scanning data, each brain region comprises at least one voxel, wherein each brain region is composed of voxels with the same function; the processor is further configured to determine at least one target brain region corresponding to a disease type in the at least two brain regions based on the disease type of the subject ; and a target determining unit, configured to determine a target located in the at least one target brain region according to a predetermined target identification rule. 11. An electronic apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and a storage device having at least one program stored thereon, wherein the at least one program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to execute the method according to claim 1. 12. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by at least one processor, executes the method according to claim 1. 13. A neuromodulation apparatus, configured to make neuromodulation on a target of a subject in accordance with a preset neuromodulation solution; wherein the target is determined by a method of target identification, comprising: acquiring scanning data of a subject, wherein the scanning data comprise data acquired from magnetic resonance imaging of a brain of the subject; determining at least two brain regions of the subject based on the scanning data, each brain region comprising at least one voxel, wherein each brain region is composed of voxels with the same function; determining at least one target brain region corresponding to a disease type in the at least two brain regions based on the disease type of the subject; and determining a target located in the at least one target brain region according to a predetermined target identification rule. 14. (Original) The apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the preset neuromodulation solution comprises at least one of: deep brain electrical stimulation; transcranial electrical stimulation; electroconvulsive therapy; electrical stimulation based on cortical brain electrodes; transcranial magnetic stimulation; focused ultrasound neuromodulation; magnetic resonance guided high-intensity focused ultrasound therapy neuromodulation; and photobiomodulation therapy. 15. (Previously Presented) The neuromodulation apparatus according to claim 13, wherein determining the at least two brain regions of the subject based on the scanning data comprises: determining the at least two brain regions of the subject based on the scanning data based on a volumetric standard brain template. 16. (Previously Presented) The neuromodulation apparatus according to claim 13, wherein determining the at least two brain regions of the subject based on the scanning data comprises: determining at least two brain regions of the subject based on the scanning data based on a cortical standard brain template. 17. (Previously Presented) The neuromodulation apparatus according to claim 13, wherein determining the at least two brain regions of the subject based on the scanning data, each brain region comprising at least one voxel, comprises: determining a connectivity between each two voxels in the scanning data to form a brain connectivity matrix corresponding to the scanning data; and forming the at least two brain regions based on a brain region template for a standard brain and the brain connectivity matrix. Regarding to claim(s) 1-4 and 8-16 , patented claim(s) 1-4, 8-15 and 17 set(s) forth the above-underlined limitations. Claim 1 of instant application recites “abnormal region of interest” while patented claim 1 recites “target brain region corresponding to a disease type , ” and patented claim 1 recites “a target i