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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant' s amendment and response filed 1/16/2026 has been entered and made record. This application contains 11 pending claims.
Claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
Claims 11 has been added.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1 and 9 have been amended and the amended claims limitations overcome the claims objections. Therefore, claims objections in claims 1 and 9 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/16/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in claims 1-10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 1 and 9 have been amended, and the amended claims limitations overcome the 103 rejections. Therefore, the 103 rejections in claims 1-10 have been withdrawn.
Newly added claim 11 depends from claim 1, and thus, the claim is not subjected to the 103 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/16/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 1-10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 2-3 of the remark filed on 1/16/2026 that “… Without conceding to this allegation, and solely to advance prosecution, independent claims 1 and 9 are amended herein to recite: … Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claims 1 and 9 sufficiently integrate the “determined calculated amount of the one or more target components within the sample gas mixture” into a practical application and therefore satisfy patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant further submits that dependent claims 2-8 and 10 are patent eligible due to depending on eligible base claims and reciting patentably distinct subject matter.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Practical application can be demonstrated by additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. However, additional elements “directly measuring, using a concentration measurement instrument, gas concentrations of one or more background gases present in the sample gas mixture, to obtain measured gas concentration data for each of the one or more background gases”; and
“obtaining measured light absorption data of each of one or more gaseous target components from a laser spectroscopy instrument indicative of an amount of absorption of light by the sample gas mixture at a frequency of each of the one or more gaseous target components” are considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. receiving data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element of “the laser spectroscopy instrument configured to measure light absorption of the one or more gaseous target components within the sample gas, each of the one or more gaseous target components having an absorption spectrum at a frequency of light or at a combination of frequencies of frequencies of light” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Therefore, the current claims do not recite additional elements that are indicative of integration of an abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 9 recites subject matter that is similar to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claim is also patent ineligible.
Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1, and claim 10 depends from claim 9, and therefore, they are not patent eligible.
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 1-11 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.
As to Claim 1, the claim recites “A method for determining target components in a sample gas mixture comprising:
directly measuring, using a concentration measurement instrument, gas concentrations of one or more background gases present in the sample gas mixture, to obtain measured gas concentration data for each of the one or more background gases;
obtaining measured light absorption data of each of one or more gaseous target components from a laser spectroscopy instrument indicative of an amount of absorption of light by the sample gas mixture at a frequency of each of the one or more gaseous target components, the laser spectroscopy instrument configured to measure light absorption of the one or more gaseous target components within the sample gas, each of the one or more gaseous target components having an absorption spectrum at a frequency of light or at a combination of frequencies of frequencies of light;
setting gas concentration fit coefficients to a chemometric model for the measured gas concentration data for each of the one or more background gases present in the sample gas mixture, wherein the chemometric model employs a broadband offset basis to a final basis set spectrum for the one or more gaseous target components;
applying an iterative mathematical model to the measured light absorption data by iteratively adjusting target component fit coefficients based on the measured gas until the measured light absorption data matches the chemometric model; and
determining a calculated amount of the one or more target components within the sample gas mixture by applying the gas concentration fit coefficients and the iteratively adjusted target component fit coefficients to the measured light absorption data and to the measured gas concentration data; and
outputting data indicative of the determined calculated amount of the one or more target components.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed 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 for claim 1).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type 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 grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
In claim 1, the steps identified in bold type are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
directly measuring, using a concentration measurement instrument, gas concentrations of one or more background gases present in the sample gas mixture, to obtain measured gas concentration data for each of the one or more background gases; and obtaining measured light absorption data of each of one or more gaseous target components from a laser spectroscopy instrument indicative of an amount of absorption of light by the sample gas mixture at a frequency of each of the one or more gaseous target components, the laser spectroscopy instrument configured to measure light absorption of the one or more gaseous target components within the sample gas, each of the one or more gaseous target components having an absorption spectrum at a frequency of light or at a combination of frequencies of frequencies of light; and outputting data indicative of the determined calculated amount of the one or more target components.
The additional elements “directly measuring, using a concentration measurement instrument, gas concentrations of one or more background gases present in the sample gas mixture, to obtain measured gas concentration data for each of the one or more background gases”; and “obtaining measured light absorption data of each of one or more gaseous target components from a laser spectroscopy instrument indicative of an amount of absorption of light by the sample gas mixture at a frequency of each of the one or more gaseous target components“ represent necessary data gathering and do not integrate the abstract limitations. The additional elements “the laser spectroscopy instrument configured to measure light absorption of the one or more gaseous target components within the sample gas, each of the one or more gaseous target components having an absorption spectrum at a frequency of light or at a combination of frequencies of frequencies of light”; and “outputting data indicative of the determined calculated amount of the one or more target components” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception.
The additional elements “a concentration measurement instrument”; and “a laser spectroscopy instrument” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are considered a generic computer element. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, directly measuring, using a concentration measurement instrument, gas concentrations of one or more background gases present in the sample gas mixture, to obtain measured gas concentration data for each of the one or more background gases; and obtaining measured light absorption data of each of one or more gaseous target components from a laser spectroscopy instrument indicative of an amount of absorption of light by the sample gas mixture at a frequency of each of the one or more gaseous target components are considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. receiving data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
For example, measuring light absorption of the one or more gaseous target components within the sample gas each of the one or more gaseous target components having an absorption spectrum at a frequency of light or at a combination of frequencies of frequencies of light by a laser spectroscopy instrument is disclosed by “Owen US20180095031”, FIG. 2, [0005], [0006], [0014], [0018], [0022], [0023]; and “Leen US 20190128799”, Abstract, [0006], [0015], [0016], [0018], [0024], [0026], [0028], [0029].
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 9 recites subject matter that is similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claim is also patent ineligible.
As to dependent claim 5, the claim recites “wherein the laser spectroscopy instrument is an off-axis integrated cavity output spectroscopy device.”, however, the limitation is recited in generality, and thus, not qualified as a particular machine.
As to dependent claim 6, the claim recites “wherein the gas concentration measurement instrument is selected from a group consisting of a gas chromatograph, a Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy device, a gas concentration sensor, a metal oxide gas sensor, an electrochemical gas sensor, a dynamic zirconia dioxide sensor and a catalytic gas sensor.”, however, the limitation is recited in generality, and thus, not qualified as a particular machine.
With regards to the dependent claims, Claims 2-4, 7-8, and 10-11 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding Claims 1-11, the most pertinent prior arts are "Owen US 20180095031", "MacMullin US 10948471B1", "Malin US 6115673A", "Su US 20110278169", "Li US 20130017611", "Leen US 20190128799", and "Liu US 20160132617".
As to claims 1 and 9, Owen teaches obtaining measured light absorption data of each of one or more gaseous target components from a laser spectroscopy instrument indicative of an amount of absorption of light by the sample gas mixture at a frequency of each of the one or more gaseous target components (Owen, Abstract, [0009], FIG. 2), the laser spectroscopy instrument configured to measure light absorption of the one or more gaseous target components within the sample gas, each of the one or more gaseous target components having an absorption spectrum at a frequency of light or at a combination of frequencies of frequencies of light (Owen, FIG. 2; [0005]);
setting gas concentration fit coefficients to a chemometric model for the measured gas concentration data for each of one or more background gases present in the sample gas mixture (Owen, Abstract, [0006], [0022], [0006]); wherein the chemometric model employs a broadband offset basis to a final basis set spectrum for the one or more gaseous target components (Owen, [0016]); and
determining a calculated amount of the one or more target components within the sample gas mixture by applying the gas concentration fit coefficients and the adjusted target component fit coefficients to the measured light absorption data and to the measured gas concentration data (Owen, [0006], [0016]).
MacMullin teaches directly measuring, using a concentration measurement instrument, gas concentrations of one or more background gases present in the sample gas mixture, to obtain measured gas concentration data for each of the one or more background gases (MacMullin, Col. 2, Lines 5-12, Col. 5, Lines 37-40).
Malin teaches applying an iterative mathematical model to the measured light absorption data by iteratively adjusting target component fit coefficients until the measured light absorption data matches the chemometric model (Malin, Col. 8, Lines 10-18 , Col. 19, Lines 66-67);
determining a calculated amount of the one or more target components within the sample gas mixture by applying the iteratively adjusted target component fit coefficients to the measured light absorption data and to the measured gas concentration data (Malin, Col. 1, Lines 49-57, Col. 8, Lines 10-18); and
outputting data indicative of the determined calculated amount of the one or more target components (Malin, Col. 8, Lines 10-18; Col. 27-33).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “applying an iterative mathematical model to the measured light absorption data by iteratively adjusting target component fit coefficients based on the measured gas concentration data until the measured light absorption data matches the chemometric model” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-11 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 1 and 9.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights