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. Drawings The drawings filed on 06 / 08 /202 3 are accepted. Information Disclosure Statement The references cited in the IDS, submitted on 12 / 15 /2022, and 0 9 /0 6 /202 4 , have been considered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) 35 U.S.C. 112 reads as follows: (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. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as being indefinite for failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 1 , lines 3-4, of claim 1 recite “ correlation data that shows a correlation between spectral data … ” Claims 11 and 12 each recite similar subject matter. It is unclear how the stored correlation data “ shows ” a correlation between spectral data and a total analysis value of the reference sample . Thus, at the time the application was filed, the specification fails to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention as claimed. Appropriate correction is required. Additionally regarding claim 1 , line 15 , of claim 1 recites “the correlation data shows a machine learning model…” Claims 11 and 12 each recite similar subject matter. It is unclear how the correlation data “shows” a machine learning model. Thus, at the time the application was filed, the specification fails to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention as claimed. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding claims 2-1 0 , and claims 2 - 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), second paragraph, due to their dependency from a rejected base claim(s). Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “correlation data storage portion,” recited in claims FILLIN "Indicate the claim(s) in which each respective limitation appears." \d *** \* MERGEFORMAT 1 and 1 0. “receiving portion,” recited in claim FILLIN "Indicate the claim(s) in which each respective limitation appears." \d *** \* MERGEFORMAT 1 3 . “reference sample data storage portion,” recited in claim FILLIN "Indicate the claim(s) in which each respective limitation appears." \d *** \* MERGEFORMAT 13 . Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1 , 10, and 13 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The correlation data showing the machine learning model calculated by the correlation calculating portion 521 in this way is stored in a correlation data storage portion D2 that has been established in a predetermined area of the memory. (FIG. 3 ; ¶48), corresponds to the correlation data storage portion ; as is shown in FIG. 3, the arithmetic processing device 5 is further endowed w ith the functions of a receiving portion 53… (FIG. 3; ¶3 5 ), corresponds to the receiving portion; and This first reference sample dat a is then stored in a reference sample data storage portion Dl that has been established in a predetermined area of the memory. (FIG. 3 ; ¶ 37 ), corresponds to the reference sample data storage portion. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications , 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory 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- 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, Claim 1 recites: An analysis device that analyzes a measurement sample based on spectral data obtained from that measurement sample, comprising: a correlation data storage portion that stores correlation data that shows a correlation between spectral data for a reference sample in which total analysis values for a predetermined plurality of components are already known, and a total analysis value of the reference sample; and a calculation main unit that applies the correlation data stored in the correlation data storage portion to the spectral data obtained from the measurement sample, and then calculates the total analysis values of the predetermined plurality of components contained in the measurement sample , wherein the reference sample contains a first reference sample that contains the predetermined plurality of components, and a second reference sample that is consisting of either one or a plurality of the components that are part of the first reference sample, and wherein the correlation data shows a machine learning model in which calculated as the training data are: first reference sample data that includes spectral data for the first reference sample and a total analysis value for the first reference sample; and second reference sample data that includes spectral data for the second reference sample and a total analysis value for the second reference sample. The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.” Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of c laims 11-15 . Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a n apparatus claim. Likewise , claim 11 is a process claim, claim 1 2 is a computer pro gram product claim, claim 1 3 is an apparatus claim, claim 1 4 is a process claim, claim 1 5 is a computer program product claim . Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim., Under Step 2A, Prong One, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps recited in Claim 1 include at least one judicial exception, that being a mathematical process. This can be seen in the claimed process steps of “ … calculates the total analysis values of the predetermined plurality of components contained in the measurement sample ” (See, for example, FIG S . 1 , 7 ; ¶¶ 43 - 4 4 , of the instant specification), and “ a machine learning model …” (See, for example, FIGS. 1, 7 ; ¶¶ 45 -4 7 , of the instant specification), each of which encompasses mathematical concepts requiring specific mathematical calculations ( The machine learning model described in ¶¶45-47 of the instant specification .) to perform the analyz ing a measurement sample based on spectral data obtained from that measurement sample , and therefore encompasses mathematical concepts. For example, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the steps of “creating an orthogonal partial least square (OPLS),” “ calculates the total analysis values ,” and “ training the machine learning model” are performed using one are more training algorithms ( model(s) ) . Each of C laims 11-15 recites analogous judicial exceptions. In claim 1, the steps of: “ calculates ,” and “ training the machine learning model” each fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. The recited process steps are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. Each of Claims 11-15 recites recite similar abstract ideas. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES). Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Each of the process steps “ calculates,” and “training the machine learning model” are recited as being performed by a computer ( “ The arithmetic processing device 5 is provided w ith analog electric circuitry that includes a b uffer and an amplifier and the like, and digital electrical circuitry such as a CPU, memory, and a DSP and the like, and an A/D convener and the like that is interposed between these. As a result of the CPU and the peripheral devices thereof operating in mutual collaboration in accordance with a predetermined program stored in the me m ory . ” FIG S . 1 -3 ; ¶¶ 29-30 , of the instant specification ). The computer is recited at a high level of generality (“ CPU ”). The computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of collecting data and performing the recited process steps The computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recited process steps comprise an “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies) . See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook , 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the controller does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook , 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). Claim 1 recites the additional elements ( equipment ) of “ analysis device ” (See, for example, FIG. 1 ; ¶ 25 , of the instant specification), “ correlation data storage portion ” (See, for example, FIGS. 1, 7 ; ¶¶ 45 -4 7 , of the instant specification), and a “ calculation main unit ” (See, for example, FIGS. 1-3; ¶¶29-30, of the instant specification) . Similarly , Claim 1 also recites the additional elements ( data ) data comprising “ a measurement sample based on spectral data obtained from that measurement sample, ” (See, for example, FIG S . 1 -3 ; ¶¶ 30-31 , of the instant specification), “ correlation data ,” (See, for example, FIGS. 1, 7 ; ¶¶45-47 , of the instant specification), “ a reference sample ,” (See, for example, FIGS. 1- 7 ; ¶¶3 6 -47 , of the instant specification), “ a total analysis value of the reference sample ,” (See, for example, FIGS. 1-7 ; ¶¶3 9 -4 3 , of the instant specification), “ a first reference sample,” (See, for example, FIGS. 1 , 3-4, 7 ; ¶¶ 37 - 39 , of the instant specification), and “ a second reference sample,” (See, for example, FIGS. 1-7 ; ¶¶39-43 , of the instant specification). However, these additional elements merely comprise generic conventional non-specific equipment, and computer hardware and software elements, and data/information, and is/are set forth at a highly generic level and each of which comprise an “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies) . See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook , 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). Each of Claims 11-15 recites analogous additional elements. Additionally, or alternatively , C laim 13 recites the additional elements ( equipment ) of “ receiving portion ” (See, for example, FIG. 3 ; ¶¶36-37 , of the instant specification), “ reference sample data storage portion ” (See, for example, FIGS. 1, 7 ; ¶¶45-47 , of the instant specification), and a “ correlation calculating portion ” (See, for example, FIGS. 1-3; ¶¶29-30, of the instant specification). C laims 1 4 -15 recites analogous additional elements. The recited additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “ It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point") ”. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements recited in claim 1, as well as c laims 11-15 , do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed method. For instance, nothing is done once the total analysis values of the predetermined plurality of components contained in the measurement sample is calculate d. Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity ( Claims 1, 11 , 1 2, 1 3, 1 4, 1 5 ). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that c laim 1 , as well as c laims 11-15 , amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, c laim 1 , as well as c laims 11-15 , is not patent eligible under 101. With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-10 , provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 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. Claims 1-1 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ando (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0140877 A1) . Regarding claim 1 , Ando teaches an analysis device that analyzes a measurement sample based on spectral data obtained from that measurement sample ( Ando : Abstract [“ An analyzer that analyzes a measurement sample on the basis of spectrum data …”]) , comprising: a correlation data storage portion that stores correlation data that shows a correlation between spectral data for a reference sample in which total analysis values for a predetermined plurality of components are already known, and a total analysis value of the reference sample ( Ando : FIG S . 1 -3 ; ¶¶ 55 -6 0 [“… the arithmetic processing unit 5 is further provided with functions as a reception part 53, a total analysis value calculation part 52, and the like … total analysis value calculation part 52 is one that calculates the concentration of THC in the measurement sample from the absorption spectrum data of the measurement sample (exhaust gas) with the reference sample data as training data, and more specifically includes a correlation calculation part 521 and a calculation main body part 522. In addition, the THC corresponds to multiple components in claims, and the THC concentration corresponds to a total analysis value in claims …. The correlation calculation part 521 is one that refers to multiple pieces of reference sample data stored in the reference sample data storage part Dl, and calculates the correlation between absorption spectrum data and THC concentration, which is common to those pieces of reference sample data, by machine learning (artificial intelligence, deep learning, or the like). Correlation data indicating the calculated correlation is stored in a correlation data storage part D2 set in a predetermined area of the memory. ”]); and a calculation main unit that applies the correlation data stored in the correlation data storage portion to the spectral data obtained from the measurement sample, and then calculates the total analysis values of the predetermined plurality of components contained in the measurement sample (Ando: FIGS. 1-3; ¶¶60-6 3 [“The calculation main body part 522 is one that applies the correlation calculated by the correlation calculation part 521 to the spectrum data of the measurement sample and calculates the THC concentration of the measurement sample. At this time, since the reception part 53 is adapted to acquire the surrounding situation data of the measurement sample, the calculation main body part 522 is adapted to apply the correlation corresponding to the surrounding data of the measurement sample when calculating the THC concentration.”]) , wherein the reference sample contains a first reference sample that contains the predetermined plurality of components, and a second reference sample that is consisting of either one or a plurality of the components that are part of the first reference sample (Ando: FIGS. 2 -3; ¶¶ 5 0-6 0 [“ … the arithmetic processing unit 5 fulfills a function as a main analysis part 51 that, from output values of the photodetector 4, calculates transmitted light spectrum data indicating the spectrum of the light transmitted through the sample, as well as calculates absorption spectrum data from the transmitted light spectrum data to specify various components contained in the measurement sample, and calculates the concentrations ( or amounts) of the respective components … the THC corresponds to multiple components in claims, and the THC concentration corresponds to a total analysis value in claims … The correlation calculation part 521 is one that refers to multiple pieces of reference sample data stored in the reference sample data storage part Dl, and calculates the correlation between absorption spectrum data and THC concentration, which is common to those pieces of reference sample data … ”]), and wherein the correlation data shows a machine learning model (Ando: FIGS. 2-3; ¶¶50-60 { See above .}; ¶ 8 5 [“…the above-described embodiment uses a correlation calculated by machine learning which directly connects spectrum data to THC concentration, but without depending on machine learning, may be adapted to calculate an arithmetic expression representing the relationship between the spectrum data and the THC concentration. ” ]) in which calculated as the training data are: first reference sample data that includes spectral data for the first reference sample and a total analysis value for the first reference sample (Ando: FIGS. 2-3; ¶¶50-60 { See above .} ) ; and second reference sample data that includes spectral data for the second reference sample and a total analysis value for the second reference sample (Ando: ¶ 20 [“… it is desirable that the correlation calculation part is one configured to calculate the correlation from the respective total analysis values and respective pieces of spectrum data of multiple mutually different reference samples. ”]; FIGS. 2-3; ¶69 [“… state ( components, pressure, temperature) of the exhaust gas also successively changes, so that pieces of data of multiple reference samples of which at least THC concentrations are mutually different are obtained by the above - described successive measurement. .” ] ; FIGS. 2-3; ¶79 [ the correlation calculation part 521 may divide THC concentration into multiple ( e.g., two or more) concentration divisions, calculate the correlation between absorption spectrum data and THC concentration for each of the concentration divisions, and store the resulting correlation data in the correlation data storage part D2. In this case, upon receipt of the absorption spectrum data of a measurement sample, the calculation main body part 522 may be adapted to, on the basis of the area or the like of the absorption spectrum data, select one piece of correlation data appropriate for the absorption spectrum data from among multiple pieces of correlation data stored in the correlation data storage part D2, and apply the selected correlation data to the spectrum data of the measurement sample to calculate the THC concentration of the measurement sample. ”] ) . Regarding Claims 11-15 , each claim recites limitations found within Claim 1, and is rejected under the same rationale applied to the rejection of Claim 1. Additionally r egarding claim 1 2 , Ando additionally discloses an analyzer program instructing an analyzer to fulfill each of the functions recited in the claim (Ando: FIGS. 2- 3 ; ¶¶50-60 [“ The CPU and its peripheral devices cooperate in accordance with a predetermined program stored in the memory, and thereby as illustrated in FIG. 3, the arithmetic processing unit 5 fulfills a function as a main analysis part 51… ”] { See above .} ; Claim 15 [“ A program recording medium recorded with an analyzer program installed in an analyzer that analyzes a measurement sample on a basis of spectrum data …”] ). Additionally regarding claim 1 3 , Ando additionally discloses a receiving portion that receives spectral data obtained from a reference sample in which total analysis values for a predetermined plurality of components are already known (Ando: FIG. 3; ¶¶50-60 [“ … as illustrated in FIG. 3, in order to make it possible to accurately measure the THC concentration (or amount) of the exhaust gas as the measurement sample, the arithmetic processing unit 5 is further provided with functions as a reception part 53, a total analysis value calculation part 52, and the like … The reception part 53 is one that receives the THC concentration of the exhaust gas measured by the FID analyzer 400. Exhaust gas whose THC concentration measured by the FID analyzer 400 is known is hereinafter referred to as a reference sample. ”]), and a reference sample data storage portion that stores reference sample data that includes total analysis values for a plurality of the reference samples that are mutually different from each other (Ando: FIG. 3; ¶¶50-60 [“…links this to the THC concentration of the reference sample measured by the FID analyzer 400 as reference sample data, and stores this in a reference sample data storage part D1 set in a predetermined area of the memory. ”]). Regarding claim 2 , Ando teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 1 as shown above. Ando additionally discloses the second reference sample is either one or a plurality of the components that make up the predetermined plurality of components ( Ando : ¶20 [“… it is desirable that the correlation calculation part is one configured to calculate the correlation from the respective total analysis values and respective pieces of spectrum data of multiple mutually different reference samples.”]; FIGS. 2-3; ¶69 [“…state (components, pressure, temperature) of the exhaust gas also successively changes, so that pieces of data of multiple reference samples of which at least THC concentrations are mutually different are obtained by the above-described successive measurement..” ]; FIGS. 2-3; ¶79 [the correlation calculation part 521 may divide THC concentration into multiple (e.g., two or more) concentration divisions, calculate the correlation between absorption spectrum data and THC concentration for each of the concentration divisions, and store the resulting correlation data in the correlation data storage part D2. In this case, upon receipt of the absorption spectrum data of a measurement sample, the calculation main body part 522 may be adapted to, on the basis of the area or the like of the absorption spectrum data, select one piece of correlation data appropriate for the absorption spectrum data from among multiple pieces of correlation data stored in the correlation data storage part D2, and apply the selected correlation data to the spectrum data of the measurement sample to calculate the THC concentration of the measurement sample.”] { See above .} ) . Regarding claim 3 , Ando teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 1 as shown above. Ando additionally discloses the second reference sample is consisting of either one or a plurality of the components that do not contribute to the total analysis value, among the reference sample in which total analysis values for the predetermined plurality of components are already known ( Ando : FIGS. 2 - 3; ¶¶50-60 { See above .}). Regarding claim 4 , Ando teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 1 as shown above. Ando additionally discloses the second reference sample is consisting of either one or a plurality of the components for which a pseudo-correlation exists between itself and the total analysis value ( Ando : FIGS. 2-3; ¶¶50-60 ; { See above .}; ¶¶ 75-77 [“… as long as a correlation is preliminarily obtained, it is not necessary to use the FID analyzer for THC concentration measurement, and therefore the need to use difficult-to-handle gases such as supporting gas (H2) and inert gas (He) used for concentration adjustment of it is eliminated … ”]). Regarding claim 5 , Ando teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 1 as shown above. Ando additionally discloses the second reference sample is a fuel that generates exhaust gas (Ando: FIGS. 2-3; ¶¶50-60 { See above .}). Regarding claim 6 , Ando teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 1 as shown above. Ando additionally discloses the measurement sample or the first reference sample is exhaust gas, and the predetermined plurality of components are hydrocarbons (Ando: FIGS. 2-3; ¶¶50-60 ; { See above .}). Regarding claim 7 , Ando teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 1 as shown above. Ando additionally discloses the measurement sample or the first reference sample is exhaust gas, and the predetermined plurality of components are hydrocarbons (Ando: FIGS. 2-3; ¶¶55-60 [“…the arithmetic processing unit 5 is further provided with functions as a reception part 53, a total analysis value calculation part 52, and the like…total analysis value calculation part 52 is one that calculates the concentration of THC in the measurement sample from the absorption spectrum data of the measurement sample (exhaust gas) with the reference sample data as training data, and more specifically includes a correlation calculation part 521 and a calculation main body part 522. In addition, the THC corresponds to multiple components in claims, and the THC concentration corresponds to a total analysis value in claims …”] { See above .}). Regarding claim 8 , Ando teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 1 as shown above. Ando additionally discloses the analysis device is an FTIR-type device (Ando: FIG. 2; ¶ 44 [“…as illustrated in FIG. 2, the present analyzer 100 is a Fourier transform infrared spectroscopic analyzer referred to as a so-called FTIR including a light source 1, interferometer…”]). Regarding claim 9 , Ando teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 1 as shown above. Ando additionally discloses the total analysis value of the first reference sample and the total analysis value of the second reference sample are obtained via measurements performed by an FID analyzer (Ando: FIGS. 2-3; ¶¶50-60 ; { See above .}). Regarding claim 10 , Ando teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 1 as shown above. Ando additionally discloses a plurality of correlation data calculated for each one of various types of fuel is stored in the correlation data storage portion, and the calculation main unit switches the correlation data that is to be applied to the spectral data obtained from the measurement sample in accordance with the type of fuel used to generate the measurement sample (Ando: FIGS. 2-3; ¶¶55- 63 [“…calculation main body part 522 is one that applies the correlation calculated by the correlation calculation part 521 to the spectrum data of the measurement sample and calculates the THC concentration of the measurement sample. At this time, since the reception part 53 is adapted to acquire the surrounding situation data of the measurement sample, the calculation main body part 522 is adapted to apply the correlation corresponding to the surrounding data of the measurement sample when calculating the THC concentration.”] { See above .}). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent 5 , 446 , 681 , to Gethner et al. , discloses a method of operating a spectrometer to determine property and/or composition data of a sample which comprises an on-line spectral measurement of the sample using a computer controlled spectrometer, statistical analysis of the sample data based upon a statistical model using sample calibration data, and automatically identifying a sample if necessary based upon statistical and expert system (rule-based) criteria. U.S. Patent Publication 2019 / 0130994 A1, to Ruderman et al. , discloses a n automated, high throughput, rapid analysis of complex datasets such as datasets generated through mass spectrometric analysis, so as to reduce or eliminate the need for oversight in the analysis process while rapidly yielding accurate results. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JEFFREY P AIELLO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (303) 297-4216 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8 AM - 4:30 PM EST . 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 Shelby Turner can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-6334 . 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. /JEFFREY P AIELLO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857