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. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Korean Application KR10-2020-0168210 has been filed with a priority date of 04 December 2020. Claim Interpretation 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: 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 limitations are “an analysis unit” for “acquiring and analyzing” in claim 1 and “light irradiation unit irradiating light” in claim 1 . The disclose defines the light irradiation unit as a light emitting diode (LED), a lamp, an electroluminescence element, or the like thus providing sufficient structure for performing the function of irradiating light (see pg. 5, last paragraph of the specification) . However, the disclose states that the configuration of the analysis unit is omitted from the disclosure as such photoactive gas sensors are well known in the art (see pg. 6, 2 nd paragraph) and thus fails to provide sufficient structure for performing acquiring and analyzing. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. 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. 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. Claim limitation “analysis unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclose states that the configuration of the analysis unit is omitted from the disclosure as such photoactive gas sensors are well known in the art (see pg. 6, 2 nd paragraph) and thus fails to provide sufficient structure for performing acquiring and analyzing. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 1: Claims 1-5 are directed toward a process and thus falls under one of the four statutory categories of invention (see MPEP 2106.03 II. Eligibility Step 1: Whether a Claim is to a Statutory Category). Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recite s “a gas species identifying step of identifying a gas species of the target gas on the bases of a pre-stored waveform database for a waveform of the sensor signal according to the gas species by the analysis unit” or essentially comparing a sensor signal waveform to a known waveform to determine the gas species of a target gas, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed in the mind and thus falls under the Metal Processes grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. Mental Processes). Therefore, claim 1 recites a judicial exception. Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because after the gas species is identified, nothing else is done. Integrating the abstract idea with an analysis unit fails to meet the qualifications of a practical application because the analysis unit could be interpreted as a general purpose computer and thus is not considered a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b) I. The Particularity or Generality of the Elements of the Machine or Apparatus). The additional method steps provided in claim 1 amount to mere data gathering and thus recites an insignificant extra-solution activity (see 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity). Dependent claims 2-4 merely further limit the steps of data gathering and thus fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 5 recites “ the gas species of the target gas is identified using at least one method selected among principal component analysis (PCA), a support vector machine (SVM), an artificial neural network (ANN), and a deep neural network (DNN) ” thus limiting the type of program used in the analysis unit to perform the abstract idea thus integrating the abstract idea into a particular application (see MPEP 2106.05(b) I. The Particularity or Generality of the Elements of the Machine or Apparatus). Step 2B: The claim s do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the components of claim 1, using a photoreactive gas sensor, an analysis unit, and light irradiation unit to perform a method of a gas species identification is well-known, routine, and conventional in the art as evidenced by primary reference EP 3163295 to Shim (see MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity). . Dependent claims 1-4 fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more. Therefore, claims 1-4 are not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by European Publication EP 3163295 to Shim as cited on the 10 October 2024 IDS. Regarding claim 1 , Shim discloses a measurement protocol (i.e., a gas identification method) (see abstract) of a photoactive gas sensor including a passive component (i.e., sensing material) whose resistance varies in response to its reaction to certain components of a gas to characterized upon light irradiation (see [0070-0072]), a controller 610 (i.e., analysis unit) acquiring and analyzing measurement signals generated by the sensing material (see [0052,0057]; Fig. 6), and an ultraviolet light source 643, irradiating light (see [0052]; Fig. 6), comprising: irradiating the gas sensor using UV light according to a particular measurement protocol 710, wherein various combinations of UV irradiation frequency, UV pulse frequency, LED intensity, etc. can be modulated by the UV drive 633 and can be represented as a set of waveforms corresponding to different settings (see [0061-0071; Figs. 6-7) (i.e., “a variable light irradiation step of irradiating light to the sensing material with a waveform of a predetermined light irradiation signal so that an amount of irradiated light varies over time by the light irradiation unit”); a gas sensing step of activating a chemical reaction of the sensing material with the gas to characterized (i.e., target ga) by variable light irradiation to generate measurement values (i.e., signals) (see [0072-0079]; Figs. 6-7); a gas species identifying step, wherein the analysis unit compares measured responses to known samples in a characterization library in order to classify the target gas on the basis of the measured responses obtained for a waveform (see 0077, 0086-0088]) (i.e., “a gas species identifying step of identifying a gas species of the target gas on the basis of a pre-stored waveform sample database for a waveform of the sensor signal according to the gas species by the analysis unit”). Regarding claim 2 , Shim discloses the gas species identification method of claim 1, and discloses wherein the light is irradiated with a waveform that is a square wave (see Fig. 7). Regarding claim 3 , Shim discloses the gas species identification method of claim 1, and discloses modulating the intensity or wavelength of Ultra-violet radiation can have a strong effect on modifying the reaction of the gas sensor to different gases, and as such augments the effects of the multiple modulations of the gas sensor during a measurement cycle (see [0030]), wherein the measurement results obtained can be compared to target characterizations in order classify the target gas the matches the most closely (see [0038]) (i.e., “wherein the gas species identifying step, by using a principle that a chemical reaction rate on a surface of the sensing material is different depending on a gas species, and thus, a transient aspect of the sensor signal appears differently for each gas species as an amount of irradiated light is varied”). Shim discloses variable light is irradiated to a pre-selected sample gas with a waveform of a pre-selected light irradiation signal (see [0068-0072]) to collect waveform samples of a sensor signal, thereby configuring a waveform sample database (see [0077-0083]; Fig. 7) and Shim discloses the gas species of a target gas is identified on the basis of a waveform representing desired settings for a particular measurement cycle (see [0061]) and wherein the measurement signals obtained at a particular waveform are compared to a characterization library (i.e., waveform database) comprising a plurality of characterization targets to provide a final complete classification of the sample (see [0086-0087]) (i.e., “the gas species of the target gas is identified on the basis of the waveform sample database of the sensor signal according to the gas species”). Regarding claim 5 , Shim discloses the gas species identification method of claim 1 and discloses wherein in the gas identifying step, the gas species is identified using at least one method selected among principal component analysis (PCA) and artificial neural networks (ANN) (see [0089]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over European Publication EP 3163295 to Shim as cited on the 10 October 2024 IDS in view of International Publication WO 2020/206438 to Thomas et al. (herein Thomas) as cited on the 10 October 2024 IDS. Regarding claim 4 , Shim discloses the gas species identification method of claim 1, however fails to disclose “wherein in the gas species identifying step, the sensor signal measured as a function according to time is converted into a frequency spectrum through Fourier transform, and the gas species of the target gas is identified using the frequency spectrum” as recited in the instant claim. Thomas discloses converting measurement signals of a gas sensor into a frequency spectrum using a Fourier transform to measure gas concentrations in a fluid environment (see [0026-0034]). Thomas and Shim are analogous in the art of systems and methods for determining target gas concentrations using gas sensor by varying system characteristics and taking multiple measurements over time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Shim to include, in the gas species identifying step, converting the sensor signal measured as a function of time into a frequency spectrum through Fourier transform and using said frequency spectrum to identify the gas species for the benefit of taking into account both magnitude and phase responses of gas concentration of a measurement cycle to improve accuracy (see [0025-0034] of Thomas). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KATHRYN E LIMBAUGH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0787 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 7:00-5:00 . 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 Lyle Alexander can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1254 . 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. /KATHRYN ELIZABETH LIMBAUGH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797