Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION 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 s 1- 6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. With regards to Claim 1, the limitation “ a heating module, provided in the target zone and configured to adjust the internal temperature of the target zone in a preset manner, for uniformly heating the target zone using convection ” is indefinite because it is unclear what the patentable boundaries of the underlined limitation are. This limitation describes intended use result without clear boundaries. Claim Interpretation under 112(f) 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 limitation(s) is/are those that are labeled as “modules” in all claims . The se claims describe the various modules in functional terms of what they do, rather than how they do it. Under 35 USC 112(f), the Specification must identify a specific and readily-identifiable algorithm in the Specification associated with the claimed function. 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. According to MPEP 2181, II, B, “In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. HYPERLINK "https://rdms-mpep-vip.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/ch2100_d222e6_13a14_1cb" … the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to a special purpose computer so that a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement the disclosed algorithm to achieve the claimed function. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1242.” A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding algorithm for performing the claimed function as described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragr aph limitation: Figs. 8 and 9, [0054, 0057, 0058, 0059, 0060] . 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 § 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- 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites: “ A system for diagnosing a building envelope thermal performance, comprising: a target zone input module for searching for a target zone including at least one outer wall in contact with the outdoor air from among spaces included and partitioned in a building and inputting information about the target zone ; an adjacent zone input module for searching for an adjacent zone in contact with the target zone with an inner wall interposed therebetween and inputting information about the adjacent zone ; a heating module, provided in the target zone and configured to adjust the internal temperature of the target zone in a preset manner, for uniformly heating the target zone using convection; a heat loss calculation module for calculating the amount of heat loss of the target zone in a preset manner based on a measurement load consumed by the heating module ; a solar heat gain calculation module for calculating solar heat gain obtained by the target zone from solar radiation; and an infiltration load calculation module for calculating an infiltration load of the target zone using parameters measured in a preset manner, wherein the heat loss calculation module uses the solar heat gain and the infiltration load, primarily calculates the envelope load using the thermal balance between the target zone and the adjacent zone and secondarily calculates the amount of heat loss from the inner wall based on the envelope load . ” The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”. Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process). Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. For example, steps of “ calculating the amount of heat loss of the target zone in a preset manner based on a measurement load consumed by the heating module ; … calculating solar heat gain obtained by the target zone from solar radiation; and an infiltration load calculation module for calculating an infiltration load of the target zone using parameters measured in a preset manner, wherein the heat loss calculation module uses the solar heat gain and the infiltration load, primarily calculates the envelope load using the thermal balance between the target zone and the adjacent zone and secondarily calculates the amount of heat loss from the inner wall based on the envelope load ” are treated as belonging to the mathematical concepts grouping while the steps of “ searching for a target zone including at least one outer wall in contact with the outdoor air from among spaces included and partitioned in a building and inputting information about the target zone ; … searching for an adjacent zone in contact with the target zone with an inner wall interposed therebetween and inputting information about the adjacent zone ” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping. These mental steps represent a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. I n the context of this claim , it encompasses a user manually observing available zones to select/judge the zones satisfying the selection criteria of a “target zone”, “adjacent zone”, etc. (as discussed, for example, in [0054], as published: “ Information about individual target zone is input, and as an example, target zone shape information, window information, etc. may all be inputted. Of course, the user may be set to directly select the target zone ”). Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the above judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The above claim comprise s the following additional elements: In Claim 1: A system for diagnosing a building envelope thermal performance, comprising: a target zone input module , an adjacent zone input module , a heating module configured to adjust the internal temperature of the target zone in a preset manner, for uniformly heating the target zone using convection , a heat loss calculation module , a solar heat gain calculation module , an infiltration load calculation module . The additional elements in the preamble are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application. The additional elements in the claim such as a number of functional modules that are generally recited and , therefore, not meaningful , are not qualified as particular machines to indicate a practical application . Searching modules represent insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering . According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance they perform activity “in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application” . Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B. However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art bas ed on the prior art of record that discloses a heating module as well as functional modules (Yong, Geun ) . The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible. With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2 - 8 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising abstract idea steps) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without meaningful additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or additional elements that qualify for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1 . For example, additional elements in Claim 2 ( an envelope load calculation unit and implied temperature sensor ) , Claim 3 ( control ling the heating module an using implied outdoor temperature sensor), Claim 4 (adjusting indoor temperature in real time), Claim 6 ( sub-heating module provided in each of the plurality of adjacent zones is controlled to artificially adjust the indoor temperatures in all of the plurality of adjacent zones to be the same ), Claim 7 (inputting corresponding information), and Claim 8 ( controls the heating module with regrds t o indoor temperature and humidity ) - are all recited in generality and not meaningful to indicate a practical application and/or qualify for significantly more. Analysis of Closest Prior Art JANG CHUL YONG et al. (KR 20140010579), hereinafter ‘Yong’ discloses a system for diagnosing a building envelope thermal performance (An apparatus and method for evaluating building energy performance are disclosed, Abstract) , comprising: a heating module, provided in the target zon e and configured to adjust the internal temperature of the target zone in a preset manner, for uniformly heating the target zone using convection ( heat source equipment inst alled in the building , Abstract ; room temperature automatic control device is installed in each room or zone , p4 ) ; a heat loss calculation module for calculating the amount of h eat loss of the target zone in a preset manner based on a measurement load consumed by the heating module (an amount of heat loss through the shell of a buil ding is calculated (S201). And calculates the heat loss of the ventilation due to the ventilation in the building (S202) , p.5) ; a solar heat gain calculation module for calculating solar heat gain obtained by the target zone from solar radiation (The solar heat amount calculating unit 106 calculates the solar heat amount obtained by the inflow of solar radiation energy through the window of the building 10. In one embodiment, the solar heat gain calculation unit 106 may calculate the solar heat gain using information related to one or more of the direction, area, shielding coefficient, and sunshade of the window of the building 10. The amount of solar heat is obtained from the climate data of 13 regions according to the window area and the window type, the shielding coefficient according to the glass type of the window, the shading type, and the like. Can be extracted and calculated , p.4) . JEONG HAK GEUN et al. (KR 20210046365), hereinafter ‘ Geun ’ , discloses an infiltration load calculation module for calculating an infiltration load of the target zone using parameters measured in a preset manner (based on the principle that the sum of the convective heat transfer amount (Q . sub.H ) through the wall between indoor and outdoor and the heat transfer amount due to infiltration (infiltration heat transfer amount, Q .sub.INF ) corresponds to the energy loss amount (ΔQ), infiltration . sub.The convective heat transfer amount Q H is first calculated from the heat transfer amount Q .sub.INF and the energy loss amount ΔQ, and the surface heat transfer rate h may be calculated based on the calculated convective heat transfer amount Q . sub.H . It is based on convective heat transfer quantity (Q . sub.H ) surface heat transfer coefficient (h) is calculated, an area of the wall, based on the indoor surface temperature, and room temperature information of the wall surface heat transfer coefficient (h) from the convection heat transfer quantity (Q . sub.H ) is Can be calculated, p.9). Andrew Adams et al. (US 8155900), hereinafter ‘Adams’ , discloses a target zone input module for searching for a target zone including at least one outer wall in contact with the outdoor air from among spaces included and partitioned in a building and inputting information about the target zone (zone 102A, Fig.2; Col.4, Lines 47-58); an adjacent zone input module for searching for an adjacent zone in contact with the target zone with an inner wall interposed therebetween and inputting information about the adjacent zone (Zone 102B/102C, Fig.2; Col.4, Lines 47-58). Peng Xue et al., “Quantitative study on adjacent room heat transfer: Heating load and influencing factors”, Sustainable Cities and Societies, 51 (2019), 8 p, hereinafter ‘Xue’, discloses calculat ing the envelope load using the thermal balance between the target zone and the adjacent zone ( calculate the heating load. The time-dependent temperature of the simulated room is compared with the hourly measured temperature to validate model accuracy, Abstract; the composition of target room’s heating l oad is estimated. The heating load of the target room is assumed to i nclude the basic heat loss from an envelope and adjacent room in six possible faces. The heat sources include solar radiation and radiator near the window. Each part of the target room’s heating load is calculated and shown in Fig.6 , p.4) . Examiner Note with Regards to Prior Art of Record Claims 1- 8 are distinguished over prior art of record based on the reasons below. However, in regards to Claim 1 , the claim differ s from the closest prior art, Yong, Geun , A d ams, and Xue , either singularly or in combination, because the references fail to anticipate or render obvious wherein the heat loss calculation module uses the solar heat gain and the infiltration load, primarily calculates the envelope load using the thermal balance between the target zone and the adjacent zone and secondarily calculates the amount of heat loss from the inner wall based on the envelope load , in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lin-Shu Wang et al., “A study of building envelop and thermal mass requirements for achieving thermal autonomy in an office building”, Energy and Buildings, 78 (2014), pp. 79-88. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5819 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F: 9 am-5 pm . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 27 0 - 0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857