DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 12/02/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The reference(s) listed on the Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted on 12/02/2025 has/have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449).
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claims 9 and 15, the limitation “a0” lacks clear antecedent basis and must be defined in each claim.
Examiner respectfully requests from Applicant verification and requires appropriate correction regarding these matters.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 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: “infrared optical imaging module is configured to” and “data processing module is configured to” in Claim 1, “tail gas treatment module is configured to” in Claim 3, “an acquisition module, configured to”, “a data analysis module, configured to”, “a kinetic determination module, configured to”, and “a thermodynamic data determination module” in Claim 16.
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 § 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 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
In Claim 18 (and dependents thereof), “A computer-readable storage medium” is recited in the claim. However, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art could interpret a computer-readable storage medium as nothing more than encompassing a signal only, and thus, as a signal, per se. Furthermore, there is no language in the claim or Specification by which the claim elements can be made functional and statutory. A claim to a computer storage media that encompasses a signal covers a non-statutory embodiment (signal, per se), and thus is directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP § 2106. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the limitations to mean merely a computer-readable storage medium encompassing a signal only, which is non-statutory.
Therefore, the examiner suggests amending the claim to recite - - A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium - - .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 10-14, and 16-17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record generally discloses similar features as in the independent Claims (see Simula (US 20260001820 A1), Figs. 1 and 11; Fushimi (US 20250383328 A1), Figs. 1 and 11, and [0085]-[0087]; Jones (US 20240335784 A1), Figs. 4-5; Taras (US 20240166575 A1), Figs. 1-5). However, after careful search and consideration, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the particularized features of: an in-situ reaction cell module, an infrared optical imaging module, and a data processing module; wherein: the in-situ reaction cell module comprises an in-situ gas flow cell, a mass flowmeter and a gas source; the in-situ gas flow cell comprises a gas flow cavity, a heating stage, and a metal oxide library substrate arranged in the gas flow cavity and placed on the heating stage; the metal oxide library substrate is provided with a plurality of holes into which reaction samples are placed; the reaction sample comprises a solid sample or a liquid sample; the gas source is configured to deliver reaction gas into the gas flow cavity of the in-situ gas flow cell through the mass flowmeter; the mass flowmeter is configured to control a concentration and a flow rate of the reaction gas; and the heating stage is configured to heat the reaction sample; the infrared optical imaging module is configured to acquire infrared images of a surface of the reaction sample and send the infrared images to the data processing module; the data processing module is configured to perform data analysis on the infrared images received and extract a kinetic curve from the infrared images; in a case that the reaction sample is the solid sample, the data processing module is further configured to fit the kinetic curve by using a predetermined adsorption kinetic equation to determine kinetic data of the surface of the reaction sample, and/or fit the kinetic curve by using a thermal dissipation kinetic equation to determine thermodynamic data of the surface of the reaction sample; wherein the kinetic curve is an infrared image intensity curve; and in a case that the reaction sample is a liquid sample, the data processing module is further configured to fit the kinetic curve by using a thermal dissipation kinetic equation to determine thermodynamic data of the surface of the reaction sample, along with all other limitations recited in the independent Claims 1, 12, and 16-17.
Dependent Claims 2-8, 10-11, and 13-14 are allowed by virtue of their dependencies to the above allowable Claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Although dependent Claims 9 and 15 contain allowable subject matter, they are currently objected to (see above) and would also be deemed allowed once the objection is overcome by amendment.
Although Claims 18-20 contain allowable subject matter (for the same reasons as outlined above), Claim 18 is currently rejected under 35 USC § 101 and would be deemed allowed once the 35 USC § 101 is overcome by amendment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN M WALSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/KATHLEEN M WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
