DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed 9/30/2025 has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20-27 are pending and under consideration in this action. Claims 25-27 are newly added. Claims 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 19 have been canceled.
Priority
The instant application is 371 of PCT/US2020/045586, filed 08/10/2020, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application number 62/860,319, filed 06/12/2019, as reflected in the filing receipt, mailed 07/05/2022. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 62/860,319, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The steps involving a computer or computerized method in claims 21-27 lack support in the specification of the provisional application (Application No. 62/860,319). Specifically, the provisional application does not reference a computerized method, at least one input/output interface, a data storage, one or more processors communicably coupled to the at least one input/output interface and the data storage, receiving the data from the at least one input/output interface, a computer program embodied on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and code segments. Accordingly, claims 21-27 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
As such, the effective filing date of claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20 is 06/12/2019, and the effective filing date of claims 21-27 is the filing date of the instant application, 8/10/2020.
Response to Arguments for Priority
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Paragraph [0006] of the priority document states "Appendix A is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety." Moreover, paragraph [0010] stated that "All publications and patent applications are herein incorporated by reference to the same extent as if each individual publication or patent application was specifically and individually indicated to the incorporated by reference." Multiple references in Appendix A of the priority document disclose the use of computers. As a result, the priority document discloses that computers having processors are used for calculating adsorption isotherms, and monitoring measuring and controlling devices related thereto (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 1-2). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons:
37 C.F.R. 1.57 recites:
(d) "Essential material" may be incorporated by reference, but only by way of an incorporation by reference to a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication, which patent or patent application publication does not itself incorporate such essential material by reference. "Essential material" is material that is necessary to:
(1) Provide a written description of the claimed 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 set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a);
(2) Describe the claimed invention in terms that particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b); or
(3) Describe the structure, material, or acts that correspond to a claimed means or step for performing a specified function as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
(e) Other material ("Nonessential material") may be incorporated by reference to U.S. patents, U.S. patent application publications, foreign patents, foreign published applications, prior and concurrently filed commonly owned U.S. applications, or non-patent publications. An incorporation by reference by hyperlink or other form of browser executable code is not permitted.
The incorporation of the appendix into the specification of the provisional application is considered “nonessential material” and incorporated following 37 C.F.R. 1.57(e). However, the computer aspects from the references of the appendix are considered “essential material”, as they provide a written description of the claimed invention. “Essential material” may only be incorporated by a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication (see MPEP § 608.01(p) and 37 CFR 1.57(d)). As such, claims 21-27, which recite the computerized aspects, are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
Claim Objections
Withdrawn Objections
The objections to claims 1-2, 4-5, 12, 20, and 22-23 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 9/30/2025.
Newly Recited Objections
Claims 2, 7, 11, 17, 22, and 25-27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2 and 25 recites the phrases “
k
a
is a rate…”, “
k
d
is a rate…”, and “
x
1
is an adsorption extent…” in lines 4-6 of the claim, which should be corrected to add in the missing space between the variable and the subsequent word for clarity.
Claims 7, 17, and 26-27 recite the phrase “wherein the activity coefficient
γ
1
of the occupied site with adsorbed gas component 1 the activity coefficient
γ
ϕ
of the vacant site containing a phantom molecule
ϕ
comprise” in lines 1-4 of the claim, which should be corrected to “wherein the activity coefficient
γ
1
of the occupied site with adsorbed gas component 1 and the activity coefficient
γ
ϕ
of the vacant site containing a phantom molecule
ϕ
comprise” for clarity.
Claims 7, 17, and 26-27 also recite the phrases “where
x
1
is an adsorption extent…”, “
x
ϕ
is an adsorption extent…” in line 12 of the claim, which should be corrected to add in the missing space between the variable and the subsequent word for clarity.
Claim 11 recites the phrases “
k
a
is a rate…”, “
k
d
is a rate…”, and “
x
1
is an adsorption extent…” in lines 10-11 and 13-14 of the claim, which should be corrected to add in the missing space between the variable and the subsequent word for clarity.
Claim 22 recites the phrases “
k
a
is a rate…”, “
k
d
is a rate…”, and “
x
1
is an adsorption extent…” in lines 5-7 of the claim, which should be corrected to add in the missing space between the variable and the subsequent word for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 11, 21, and 24 recite the limitation “configuring the gas adsorption system using the adsorption amount of the gas component i” (claims 1 and 21), “configuring the gas adsorption system using the adsorption amount of the gas component 1” (claim 11), or “wherein the data is used to configure the gas adsorption system” (claim 24). The specification does not provide an explanation of how the system was “configured” or “used” based on the gas adsorption amount. However, specification Para. [0053]-[0059] states that the performance of the thermodynamic Langmuir isoform model, including the three adjustable parameters
n
i
0
,
K
0
, and
τ
1
ϕ
, was tested by correlating experimental data for pure component adsorption isoforms with other models. The root mean square error was used to evaluate the performance of the models in comparison to the experimental data. Therefore, the limitation of configuring of the gas adsorption system recited in claims 1, 11, 21, and 24 is interpreted as a comparison of the adsorption gas amount,
n
i
/
n
1
, calculated from the model with experimental data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-14, and 16-24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 9/30/2025 (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 2).
Maintained Rejections
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20 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.
These rejections are maintained from the previous Office action. Any newly recited portions herein are necessitated by claim amendment.
Claim 11 is unclear with respect to the phrase "for at least one of: a first temperature, a first pressure, a low temperature, or a high pressure region, or both comprising". The metes and bounds of the claims are rendered indefinite by the lack of clarity. The language of the phrase introduces an ambiguity regarding what "both" refers to, as there are four items in the phrase. This rejection could be overcome by amendment of the claim to clarify if "both" includes all four items. Claims 13-14, 16-18, and 20 are also rejected due to their dependency from claim 11.
Claim 11 is unclear with respect to the subscripts for n in the first equation. The metes and bounds of the claims are rendered indefinite by the lack of clarity. The first equation has "1" as the subscripts for n (line 5), while the definition of the variables (
n
i
0
) uses "
i
” (line 7). This rejection could be overcome by amendment of the claim to use the same subscript. Claims 13-14, 16-18, and 20 are also rejected due to their dependency from claim 11.
Newly Recited Rejections
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20-27 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.
This rejection is newly recited and necessitated by claim amendment.
Claims 1, 11, 21, and 24 recite the limitation “configuring the gas adsorption system using the adsorption amount of the gas component i” (claims 1 and 21), “configuring the gas adsorption system using the adsorption amount of the gas component 1” (claim 11), or “wherein the data is used to configure the gas adsorption system” (claim 24). The metes and bounds of the claims are rendered indefinite due to the lack of clarity. It is unclear how the gas adsorption system is configured using the calculated adsorption amount. As described in the Claim Interpretation section above, one interpretation of the limitation is a comparison of the
n
i
/
n
1
calculated from the model with experimental data, following specification Para. [0053]-[0059]. However, it is unclear whether this is the intended interpretation. This rejection can be overcome by amendment of claims 1, 11, 21, and 24 to clarify how the gas adsorption system is configured. Claims 2-3, 5, 7-8, 10, 13-14, 16-18, 20, 22-23, and 25-27 are also rejection due to their dependency from claims 1, 11, 21, and 24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Maintained Rejections
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 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite both (1) mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations) and (2) mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including observations, evaluations, judgements or opinions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)).
Step 1:
In the instant application, claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16-18, 20-23, and 27 are directed towards a method and claim 24-26 are directed towards a manufacture, which falls into one of the categories of statutory subject matter (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One:
In accordance with MPEP § 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter (Step 1: YES) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong One). The following instant claims recite limitations that equate to one or more categories of judicial exceptions:
Claims 1 and 21 recite a mathematical concept in “performing a calculation comprising:
n
i
=
n
i
0
K
o
γ
ϕ
P
γ
1
+
K
o
γ
ϕ
P
, where
n
i
is an adsorption amount of the gas component
i
,
n
i
0
is an adsorption maximum amount,
P
is a gas vapor pressure, and
K
0
is a thermodynamic adsorption equilibrium constant in which adsorption and desorption rates are proportional to a concentration of vacant sites and occupied sites, and
γ
1
and
γ
ϕ
are an activity coefficient of the occupied site with adsorbed gas component 1 and an activity coefficient of the vacant site, respectively”, and a mathematical concept (i.e., using the root mean square error to compare the adsorption amount of the gas component with experimental data, as described in the Claim Interpretation section above) in “configuring the gas adsorption system using the adsorption amount of the gas component i”.
Claims 2, 22, and 25 recite a mathematical concept in “calculating the thermodynamic adsorption equilibrium constant
K
o
as:
K
o
=
k
a
k
d
=
a
A
S
P
a
S
=
γ
1
x
1
γ
ϕ
1
-
x
1
P
wherein
k
a
is a rate constant of adsorption,
k
d
is a rate constant of desorption,
a
A
S
is an activity of a site occupied with an adsorbed gas
A
,
a
S
is an activity of the vacant site, and
x
1
is an adsorption extent or state of the adsorbed gas component 1”.
Claim 3 recites a mental process (i.e., a judgement of data to include) in “wherein the reference state for the vacant site is chosen to be at zero surface coverage, wherein
γ
1
=
1
at
x
1
=
1
, and
γ
ϕ
=
1
at
x
1
=
0
”.
Claim 5 recites a mathematical concept (i.e., using the formula to calculate isotherms) in “calculating one or more pure component isotherms for gases with adsorbents including silica gels, activated carbons, zeolites and metal organic frameworks” and “calculating one or more pure component isotherms for gases with adsorbents including silica gels, activated carbons, zeolites and metal organic frameworks at one or more temperatures”.
Claims 7, 17, and 26-27 recite a mathematical concept in “wherein the activity coefficient
γ
1
if the occupied site with adsorbed gas component 1 the activity coefficient
γ
ϕ
of the vacant site containing a phantom molecule
ϕ
comprise:
ln
γ
1
=
x
ϕ
2
τ
1
ϕ
(
G
1
ϕ
-
1
)
(
x
ϕ
+
x
1
G
1
ϕ
)
2
,
ln
γ
ϕ
=
x
1
2
τ
ϕ
1
(
G
ϕ
1
-
1
)
(
x
1
+
x
ϕ
G
ϕ
1
)
2
, with
G
1
ϕ
=
exp
-
α
τ
1
ϕ
,
G
ϕ
1
=
exp
-
α
τ
ϕ
1
and
τ
1
ϕ
=
-
τ
ϕ
1
=
g
10
-
g
ϕ
0
R
T
where
x
1
is an adsorption extent or state of the adsorbed gas component 1,
x
ϕ
is an adsorption extent or state of the phantom molecule
x
ϕ
where
x
ϕ
=
1
-
x
1
,
τ
1
ϕ
is a binary interaction parameter for the pair of adsorbates 1 and
ϕ
,
α
is a non-randomness parameter, and
g
10
and
g
ϕ
0
are an interaction potential between component 1 and an adsorbent 0 and an interaction potential between the phantom molecule
ϕ
and the adsorbent 0, respectively, R is a gas constant, T is a temperature”.
Claims 8 and 18 recite a mental process (i.e., a judgement of data to include) in “wherein a reference state for an occupied site with adsorbed gas component 1 is at full surface coverage when an adsorption extent or state of the adsorbed gas component 1
x
1
equals 1”.
Claim 10 recites a mental process (i.e., an evaluation of the model) in “wherein an adsorption equilibria calculated is at least one of: thermodynamically consistent; requires few adjustable model parameters; is applicable to both pure component adsorption isotherms and multicomponent adsorption isotherms; or calculates multicomponent adsorption isotherms from pure component adsorption isotherms”.
Claim 11 recites a mathematical concept in “performing a calculation comprising:
n
1
=
n
1
0
K
o
γ
ϕ
P
γ
1
+
K
o
γ
ϕ
P
and
K
o
=
k
a
k
d
=
a
A
S
P
a
S
=
γ
1
x
1
γ
ϕ
1
-
x
1
P
where
n
i
is an adsorption amount of gas component 1;
n
i
0
is an adsorption maximum amount;
P
is a gas vapor pressure,
K
o
is a thermodynamic adsorption equilibrium constant in which adsorption and desorption rates are proportional to a concentration of vacant sites and occupied sites, wherein
k
a
is a rate constant of adsorption,
k
d
is a rate constant of desorption,
a
A
S
is an activity of a site occupied with an adsorbed gas A,
a
S
is an activity of the vacant site,
γ
1
and
γ
ϕ
are an activity coefficient of the occupied site with adsorbed gas component 1 and an activity coefficient of the vacant site, respectively, and
x
1
is an adsorption extent or state of adsorbed gas component 1”; and a mathematical concept (i.e., using the root mean square error to compare the adsorption amount of the gas component with experimental data, as described in the Claim Interpretation section above) in “configuring the gas adsorption system using the adsorption amount of the gas component 1”.
Claim 13 recites a mathematical concept (i.e., using the formula to calculate isotherms) in “calculating one or more pure component isotherms for gases with adsorbents including silica gels, activated carbons, zeolites and metal organic frameworks”.
Claim 14 recites a mental process (i.e., a judgment of data to include) in “wherein a first temperature is a fixed temperature; or a first pressure is a relative pressure within a range of 0 to 0.1”.
Claim 16 recites a mathematical concept (i.e., using the formula to calculate isotherms) in “calculating one or more pure component isotherms for gases with adsorbents including silica gels, activated carbons, zeolites and metal organic frameworks at one or more temperatures”.
Claim 20 recites a mental process (i.e., an evaluation of the model) in “wherein an adsorption equilibria calculated is at least one of: thermodynamically consistent; requires few adjustable model parameters; is applicable to both pure component adsorption isotherms and multicomponent adsorption isotherms; or calculates multicomponent adsorption isotherms from pure component adsorption isotherms”.
Claim 24 recites a mathematical concept in “a code segment for determining :
n
i
=
n
i
0
K
o
γ
ϕ
P
γ
1
+
K
o
γ
ϕ
P
, where
n
i
is an adsorption amount of the gas component
i
,
n
i
0
is an adsorption maximum amount,
P
is a gas vapor pressure, and
K
0
is a thermodynamic adsorption equilibrium constant in which adsorption and desorption rates are proportional to a concentration of vacant sites and occupied sites, and
γ
1
and
γ
ϕ
are an activity coefficient of the occupied site with adsorbed gas component 1 and an activity coefficient of the vacant site, respectively”; and a mathematical concept (i.e., using the root mean square error to compare the adsorption amount of the gas component with experimental data, as described in the Claim Interpretation section above) in “wherein the data is used to configure the gas adsorption system”.
These recitations are similar to the concepts of collecting information, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis is Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), comparing information regarding a sample or test to a control or target data in Univ. of Utah Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics Corp. (774 F.3d 755, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO (689 F.3d 1303, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2012)), and organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind or mathematical relationships.
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitations when read in light of and consistent with the specification, and are determined to be directed to mental processes that in the simplest embodiments are not too complex to practically perform in the human mind. Additionally, the recited limitations that are identified as judicial exceptions from the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas are abstract ideas irrespective of whether or not the limitations are practical to perform in the human mind. The instant claims must therefore be examined further to determine whether they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two:
In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, further examination is performed that analyzes if the claim recites additional elements that when examined as a whole integrates the judicial exception(s) into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(d)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claimed additional elements are analyzed to determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the abstract idea, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(III)). The following claims recite limitations that equate to additional elements:
Claim 21 recites “wherein the foregoing steps are performed by one or more processors”.
Claim 23 recites “at least one input/output interface”, “a data storage”, “one or more processors communicably coupled to at least one input/output interface and the data storage”.
Claim 24 recites “a computer program embodied on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that is executed using one or more processors”, “a code segment for receiving data to calculate the Langmuir isotherm”, and “a code segment for outputting the data from at least one input/output interface”.
Regarding the above cited limitations in claims 21, 23, and 24 (i) wherein the forgoing steps are performed by one or more processors (claim 21); (ii) at least one input/output interface (claim 23); (iii) a data storage (claim 23); (iv) one or more processors communicably coupled to at least one input/output interface and the data storage (claim 23); (v) a computer program embodied on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that is executed using one or more processors (claim 24); and (vi) a code segment for outputting the data from at least one input/output interface (claim 24). These limitations require only a generic computer component, which does not improve computer technology. Therefore, these limitations equate to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, which the courts have established does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp. 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983.
Regarding the above cited limitations in claim 24 of (vii) a code segment for receiving data to calculate the Langmuir isotherm. This limitation equates to insignificant, extra-solution activity of mere data gathering because this limitation gathers data before or after the recited judicial exceptions of a performing a calculation of the adsorption amount of the gas component (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)). As such, claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20-27 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements that equate to well-understood, routine and conventional (WURC) limitations (MPEP § 2106.05(d)). The instant claims recite the same additional elements as recited in Step 2A, Prong Two above.
Regarding the above cited limitations in claims 21, 23, and 24 (i) wherein the forgoing steps are performed by one or more processors (claim 21); (ii) at least one input/output interface (claim 23); (iii) a data storage (claim 23); (iv) one or more processors communicably coupled to at least one input/output interface and the data storage (claim 23); (v) a computer program embodied on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that is executed using one or more processors (claim 24); and (vi) a code segment for outputting the data from at least one input/output interface (claim 24). These limitations equate to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computing environment, which the courts have established does not provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the above cited limitations in claim 24 of (vii) a code segment for receiving data to calculate the Langmuir isotherm. This limitation equates to receiving/transmitting data over a network, which the courts have established as a WURC limitation of a generic computer in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
These additional elements do not comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Therefore, the instant claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). As such, claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20-27 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed identification of mixed-gas adsorption isotherms in a gas adsorption system is an improvement over the prior art. (see e.g., paragraph [0073]). Using these adsorption amounts in the gas adsorption system as recited in the last element of claims 1, 11, 21 and 24 is a physical act upon a physical system, which "integrates the judicial exception into a practical application and thus imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception”. The last element of claim 1 has been amended to recite "configuring the gas adsorption system using the adsorption amount of the gas component i." Claims 11, 21 and 24 recite similar elements. Applicant(s) respectfully submit(s) that this element, like before, is a physical act upon a physical system, which "integrates the judicial exception into a practical application and thus imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception." (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 2-3). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons:
MPEP 2106.04(d)(II) recites:
The analysis under Step 2A Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon (including products of nature). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations introduced in subsection I supra, and discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h).
The limitation of “configuring the gas adsorption system using the adsorption amount of the gas component i” in claim 1, as well as similar limitations in claims 11, 21, and 24, have been identified as judicial exceptions in Step 2A, Prong One above. This limitation recites a mathematical concept as described in the Claim Interpretation section above. The integration of a judicial exception into a practical application can only be achieved by additional elements, not by a limitation that recites a judicial exception. Thus, the recited limitation is not considered as an improvement in mixed-gas adsorption isotherms in a gas adsorption system over the prior art. This argument is thus not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claims 1-2, 5, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swenson et al. and Ghosal et al. is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 9/30/2025 and Applicant’s arguments were found persuasive (Applicant’s remarks, Pg. 3-4).
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swenson et al., Ghosal et al., and Kaur et al. is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 9/30/2025 and Applicant’s arguments were found persuasive (Applicant’s remarks, Pg. 3-4).
The rejection of claims 21-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swenson et al., Ghosal et al., and Diaz Campos et al. is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 9/30/2025 and Applicant’s arguments were found persuasive (Applicant’s remarks, Pg. 3-4).
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20-27 are free from the prior art because the prior art does not fairly suggest or teach the calculation of the adsorption amount of a gas component using
n
i
=
n
i
0
K
o
γ
ϕ
P
γ
1
+
K
o
γ
ϕ
P
. The closest prior art is Ghosal et al. (J. Mol. Liquids. 225: 137-146 (2017); published 11/24/2016; previously cited). Ghosal et al. discloses the integration of the thermodynamic equilibrium constant into the Langmuir isotherm based on the adsorption process. However, Ghosal et al. does not teach the thermodynamic formulation of the Langmuir isoform that calculates the adsorption amount of the gas component as
n
i
=
n
i
0
K
o
γ
ϕ
P
γ
1
+
K
o
γ
ϕ
P
, as disclosed in instant claims 1, 11, 21, and 24. Claims 2-3, 5, 7-8, 10, 13-14, 16-18, 20, 22-23, and 25-27 are free from the prior art due to their dependency on claims 1, 11, 21, and 24.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANA P SANFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6504. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm 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, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached at (571)272-9047. 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.
/D.P.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/Karlheinz R. Skowronek/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights