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. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. With respect to Claim 1 the limitations A signal analysis method based on obtaining and recognizing a noise panorama distribution model, comprising the following steps: S2: processing the measurement results of the reference sample and the test sample to respectively form training data of the reference sample and the test sample, wherein the training data comprises a noise panorama or at least a partial noise panorama constituted by a plurality of noise profiles; S3: based on the training data of the reference sample and the test sample, with the observability of noise as a convergence goal, training an artificial intelligence model, to enable the model to recognize the signal and the noise from the measurement results, and distinguish between the reference sample and the test sample; and S4: inputting a measurement result of a sample to be recognized to the trained artificial intelligence model, wherein an output result of the artificial intelligence model is a specific type of the sample to be recognized. This limitation is directed to an abstract idea and would fall within the “Mathematical Concept” or “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element – S1: in a rich condition measurement environment, performing repeated measurements on a reference sample and a test sample to respectively obtain a plurality of measurement results, wherein each measurement result comprises a signal and different noise profiles, and a rich condition is a natural measurement condition that is not aimed to maintain the consistency of external conditions, does not involve noise suppression, and comprises real complex noise factors; is viewed as mere data gathering and does not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application. As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims -Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field -Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b) -Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c) -Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo Moreover Examiner views the claims to be merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to maintenance component. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are viewed as insignificant extrasolution activity as mere data gathering in an conventional way and, therefore, does not provide an inventive concept. Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by Kosko (US 2014/0025356 A1) Raissi (US 2020/0293594 A1) Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claims fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception. With respect to Claim 8 the limitations A signal analysis system based on obtaining and recognizing a noise panorama distribution model, comprising a processing module( 2 ), a training module( 3 ), and an analysis module( 4 ); wherein in a rich condition measurement environment, the measurement module( 1 ) performs repeated measurements on a reference sample and a test sample to respectively obtain a plurality of measurement results, wherein each measurement result comprises a signal and different noise profiles; the processing module( 2 ) processes the measurement results of the reference sample and the test sample to respectively form training data of the reference sample and the test sample, wherein the training data comprises a noise panorama or at least a partial noise panorama constituted by a plurality of noise profiles; based on the training data of the reference sample and the test sample, with the observability of noise as a convergence goal, the training module( 3 ) trains an artificial intelligence model, to enable the model to recognize the signal and the noise from the measurement results, and distinguish between the reference sample and the test sample; and the analysis module( 4 ) inputs a measurement result of a sample to be recognized to the trained artificial intelligence model, wherein an output result of the artificial intelligence model is a specific type of the sample to be recognized. This limitation is directed to an abstract idea and would fall within the “Mathematical Concept” or “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element – a mea surement module(1) wherein in a rich condition measurement environment, the measurement module( 1 ) performs repeated measurements on a reference sample and a test sample to respectively obtain a plurality of measurement results, wherein each measurement result comprises a signal and different noise profiles; is viewed as mere data gathering and does not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application. As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims -Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field -Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b) -Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c) -Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo Moreover Examiner views the claims to be merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to maintenance component. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are viewed as insignificant extrasolution activity as mere data gathering in an conventional way and, therefore, does not provide an inventive concept. Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by Kosko (US 2014/0025356 A1) Raissi (US 2020/0293594 A1) Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claims fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception. Dependent claims 2-7,9-10 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea). Claims 2-7,9-10 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1 and 8 recite “ wherein each measurement result comprises a signal and different noise profiles ”. However it is not clear how the measurement comprises a different noise profile, since this seems to imply that the noise in the measurement results cannot be the same. Examiner notes that a person may make measurements and then determine the noise and then determine that the noise is different in the various measurements. However as currently claimed it is not clear what causes the different noise profiles or how the measurement result comprises different noise profiles. Furthermore it is not clear what is actually measured since the measured result comprises a signal and different noise profiles. Claims 1 and 8 recite “ a rich condition is a natural measurement condition that is not aimed to maintain the consistency of external conditions, does not involve noise suppression, and comprises real complex noise factors ”. It is not clear what “the consistency of external conditions” means. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that external conditions would mean conditions that do not matter or are irrelevant, therefore “not aimed to maintain the consistency of external conditions” is not clear. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims seem to be stating, not doing something to something that doesn’t matter, and therefore is confusing. Furthermore the limitation “comprises real complex noise factors” is unclear because such a limitation could mean, real and complex, in terms of real numbers and complex number (imaginary numbers), or the limitation could mean very complicated. Therefore real complex the term real complex is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term real complex is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. An explanation would be appreciated to help Examiner understand the invention. Claims 1 and 8 recite “ wherein the training data comprises a noise panorama or at least a partial noise panorama constituted by a plurality of noise profiles; However it is not clear what “ a partial noise panorama constituted by a plurality of noise profiles ” means and is therefore indefinite. Claims 1 and 8 recite “ with the observability of noise as a convergence goal; There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore it is not clear what “ with the observability of noise as a convergence goal ” means and is therefore indefinite. Claims 1 and 8 recite “ enable the model to recognize the signal and the noise from the measurement results, and distinguish between the reference sample and the test sample; However it is not clear how to enable the model to recognize the signal and noise, and is therefore indefinite. Furthermore it is not clear how one would recognize the reference sample and the test sample since as claimed there are merely both samples that have some signal, and is therefore indefinite. Claims 1 and 8 recite “ wherein an output result of the artificial intelligence model is a specific type of the sample to be recognized; However it is not clear what “ wherein an output result of the artificial intelligence model is a specific type of the sample to be recognized ” means and is therefore indefinite. Claim 3 recites “ wherein the perturbations are selected from, but are not limited to, a spatial perturbation, a temporal perturbation, a physical perturbation, and an environmental perturbation; and wherein the spatial perturbation includes, but is not limited to, a slight displacement of a measurement site and a slight rotation of the measurement site; the temporal perturbation includes, but is not limited to, increasing a measurement duration, reducing the measurement duration, and changing a time interval between a plurality of measurements; the physical perturbation includes, but is not limited to, vibration of measurement equipment or the samples and agitation of a fluid sample during the measurement; and the environmental perturbation includes, but is not limited to, changing ambient temperature during the measurement, changing ambient humidity during the measurement, changing an electromagnetic field during the measurement, and changing barometric pressure during the measuremen t” However reciting “but is not limited to” is indefinite since it is not clear what is limiting in the claims and is therefore indefinite. Claim 6 recites “the diverse noise profile”, “the preset labels”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6, 7 recites “the preset labels”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 recites “ the model iteratively performs a large amount of experiential learning, induction, and convergence on features that allow to recognize the signal and the noise ” However it is not clear what large is and it is not clear how the model recognizes the signal and the noise and is thus indefinite. Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. Examiner notes that prior art could not be applied to the claims above due to the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections above. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kosko (US 2014/0025356 A1) teaches iteratively estimat ing an unknown parameter of a model or state of a system. An input module may receive numerical data about the system. A noise module may generate random, chaotic, or other type of numerical perturbations of the received numerical data and/or may generate pseudo-random noise. An estimation module may iteratively estimate the unknown parameter of the model or state of the system based on the received numerical data Raissi (US 2020/0293594 A1) teaches a method for analyzing an object includ ing modeling the object with a differential equation, such as a linear partial differential equation (PDE), and sampling data associated with the differential equation. The method uses a probability distribution device to obtain the solution to the differential equation. The method eliminates use of discretization of the differential equation. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7050 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 11:00-7:00 . 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 Catherine Rastovski can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-0349 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT YOSHIHISA . ISHIZUKA Examiner Art Unit 2863 /YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863