DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 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.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 5-11 are objected to.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Priority
This US Application 18/249,028 (04/13/2023) is a 371 of PCT/IB2021 059535 (10/15/2021) and claims priority of US Application 63/093,054 (10/16/2020), as reflected in the filing receipt mailed on 08/24/2023. The claims to the benefit of priority are acknowledged; and the effective filing date of claims 1-20 is 10/16/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/12/2023, 11/02/2023 and 02/24/2025 were considered.
Claim objections
Claim 8 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being improper. Colons should begin lists in which list elements are separated by newlines, e.g. claim 8 "wherein the determining step comprises:" should list each sub step in a newline after the colon. As set forth in 37 CPR 1.75, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation (608.01(m) Form of Claims). Sub-steps / elements should be indented from their parent step / element. This rule should be applied throughout the claims as needed.
In claim 5, the recited "wherein the parameter of the adsorption column includes" should recite a colon after "includes" since it begins a list of items. The same applies for claims 7 and 9-11 since lists of items are recited.
In claim 6, the recited "a adsorption efficiency" should read "an adsorption efficiency"
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 2-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the invention. Dependent claims are rejected similarly, unless otherwise noted below. The following issues cause the respective claims to be rejected under 112(b) as indefinite:
Claim 2 as currently written is indefinite by reciting "wherein the ion exchange kinetic model includes a Thomas kinetic model for chromatography and ion exchange." It is unclear what model claim 2 refers to since its parent claim recites "an analytical solution for a chromatography and ion exchange kinetic model" which recites a chromatography and ion exchange kinetic model instead of only an ion exchange kinetic model. To overcome this rejection, the claim may recite "wherein chromatography and ion exchange kinetic model includes a Thomas kinetic model for chromatography and ion exchange."
Claims 3-4 as currently written are indefinite by reciting some variables with illegible subscripts, making it unclear what exact variables is the method intended to encompass.
The following recitations require but lack antecedent basis, rendering their claims indefinite because there is no previous recitations of the followings terms as written:
Claim 3, "the analytical solution for Thomas kinetic model"
Claim 4, "the time at a point of inflection"
Claim 4, "the area of normal curve of error"
Claim 6, "the same trend"
Claim 8 as currently written is indefinite by reciting "conducting multiple iterations by varying input parameters in the analytical solutions of the Thomas kinetic model and the linear driving force model; obtaining a maximum and/or a minimum value of the adsorption efficiency related variable in a range of the parameter to be optimized; selecting the range for the parameter to be optimized corresponding to the maximum and/or minimum values of adsorption efficiency related variable." The limitation recited is missing a conjunction between the penultimate and final listed item, making it unclear if the method is intended to encompass all of the recited items or just one. In the interest of compact examination, the examiner interprets the claim to require just one within the limitation as a requirement.
Claim 8 as currently written is indefinite by reciting "obtaining a maximum and/or a minimum value of the adsorption efficiency related variable in a range of the parameter to be optimized; selecting the range for the parameter to be optimized corresponding to the maximum and/or minimum values." The obtaining step requires a maximum and/or a minimum value whereas the selecting step requires maximum and/or minimum values. Thus, it is unclear if more than one maximum and/or a minimum value of the adsorption efficiency is required.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to one or more Judicial Exceptions (JEs) without significantly more. Regarding JEs, "Claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas..., natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection" (MPEP 2106.04 §I). Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts and procedures for evaluating, analyzing or organizing information, which are a type of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
101 background
MPEP 2106 organizes JE analysis into Steps 1, 2A (Prong One & Prong Two), and 2B as analyzed below. MPEP 2106 and the following USPTO website provide further explanation and case law citations: uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials.
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (MPEP 2106.03)?
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a-c))?
Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application by an additional element (MPEP 2106.04(d))?
Step 2B: Do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of elements in addition to any identified judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05)?
Analysis of instant claims
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a 101 process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (MPEP 2106.03)?
The instant claims are directed to a method (claims 1-20) which falls within one of the categories of statutory subject matter.
[Step 1: claims 1-20: Yes]
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a-c))?
Background
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite judicial exceptions in the form of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) further explains that abstract ideas are defined as:
• mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships
and mathematical calculations) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I));
• certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)); and/or
• mental processes (concepts practically performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Analysis of instant claims
With respect to the instant claims, under the Step 2A, Prong One evaluation, the claims are found to recite abstract ideas that fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts (in particular mathematical relationships and formulas) and mental processes (in particular procedures for observing, analyzing and organizing information) are as follows.
Mathematical concepts (in particular mathematical relationships and formulas) include:
• "deriving an analytical solution for a chromatography and ion exchange kinetic model of the adsorption column; deriving an analytical solution for a Linear Driving Force model, wherein each of the analytical solutions includes a mathematical correlation between a concentration of an adsorbate in the adsorption column and a feed concentration of the adsorbate" (independent claim 1);
• "generating data of the concentration of the adsorbate in the adsorption column against values of a dimensionless number corresponding to the parameter based on each of the two analytical solutions" (independent claim 1); and
• "conducting multiple iterations by varying input parameters in the analytical solutions of the Thomas kinetic model and the linear driving force model; obtaining a maximum and/or a minimum value of the adsorption efficiency related variable in a range of the parameter to be optimized" (claim 8).
The claims identified above read on math. The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation and determined each element performed by mathematical operation. The step directed to “executing mathematical derivations to determine a parameter” requires mathematical techniques as the only supported embodiments because it describes a mathematical technique (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) pertains). Further support for the mathematical techniques used in the claims is provided in the specification at [0009-0010 and 0035-0036], which discloses mathematical equations to arrive at such derivations. Thus, the recited terms correspond to verbal equivalents of mathematical concepts because they constitute actions executed by a group of mathematical steps in a form of a mathematical algorithm; thus mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). A mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "words used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) pertains.
Mental processes, defined as concepts or steps practically performed in the human mind such as steps of observations, evaluations, judgments, analysis, opinions or organizing information include:
• "determining the optimal range for the parameter based on the data generated by using both analytical solutions" (independent claim 1).
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) and determined to each cover performance either in the mind (i.e. concepts practically performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) or because the method only requires a user to manually determine action based on an added number. Under the BRI, the recited limitations are mental processes because a human mind is also sufficiently capable of evaluating data values to determine an optimum range for a parameter.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-20 recite further steps that limit the judicial exceptions in independent claim 1 and, as such, also are directed to those abstract ideas. For example, claims 2-4 recite further details about the analytical solution; claims 5-7, 12-13 and 20 recite further details about the parameter of the adsorption column; claim 9 recites further details about the adsorbate and claims 10-11 and 14-19 recite further details about the adsorbent.
[Step 2A Prong One: claims 1-20: Yes ]
Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application by an additional element (MPEP 2106.04(d))?
The claims do not recite any additional elements that either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. [Step 2A Prong Two: claims 1-20: No]
Step 2B: Do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of elements in addition to any identified judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05)?
The claims do not recite any additional elements to discuss as conventional. [Step 2B: claims 1-20: No]
Conclusion: Instant claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter
For the reasons above, the claims in this instant application, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept not clearly anything significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
A. Claims 1, 5, 9-11 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over LeVan ("Adsorption and ion exchange." Energy 16.1997:17 (1997)) in view of Raymond ("Intraparticle mass transfer in adsorption heat pumps: limitations of the linear driving force approximation." 042001 (2011)), as cited on the attached Form PTO-892.
Claim 1 recites:
deriving an analytical solution for a chromatography and ion exchange kinetic model of the adsorption column;
deriving an analytical solution for a Linear Driving Force model, wherein each of the analytical solutions includes a mathematical correlation between a concentration of an adsorbate in the adsorption column and a feed concentration of the adsorbate;
• LeVan teaches design concepts for adsorption and ion exchange systems (pg. 4 Title and col. 1 para. 1); wherein the breakthrough behavior for adsorption with axial dispersion in a deep bed is described by a partial differential equation of the second order Fickian model (i.e. deriving an analytical solution for a chromatography and ion exchange kinetic model of the adsorption column) (pg. 36 col. 1 para. 1). LeVan also teaches design concepts for adsorption and ion exchange systems (pg. 4 Title and col. 1 para. 1); wherein the linear driving force approximation is obtained when the driving force is expressed as a concentration difference (pg. 22 col. 1 para. 4) (i.e. deriving an analytical solution for a Linear Driving Force model). Furthermore, LeVan teaches that rate equations (i.e. kinetic model component) and the LDF correction factor (i.e. Linear Driving Force model component) are based on the feed concentration (pg. 24 col. 2 para. 6) and based on the adsorbate concentration in the particle at equilibrium with the fluid concentration (pg. 26 col. 1 para. 3) (i.e. wherein each of the analytical solutions includes a mathematical correlation between a concentration of an adsorbate in the adsorption column and a feed concentration of the adsorbate).
generating data of the concentration of the adsorbate in the adsorption column against values of a dimensionless number corresponding to the parameter based on each of the two analytical solutions; and
determining the optimal range for the parameter based on the data generated by using both analytical solutions
• LeVan does not teach the recitation above. However, Raymond teaches the use of linear driving force (LFD) equations (i.e. analytical solution for a Linear Driving Force model) and Fickian diffusion (FD) equations (i.e. analytical solution for a chromatography and ion exchange kinetic model) for cylindrical and spherical geometries while analyzing the relative error of the LDF approximation compared with the FD solution (pg. 1 Abstract); wherein adsorbate content versus dimensionless cycle time for both FD and LDF equations in spherical coordinates are plotted (i.e. generating data of the concentration of the adsorbate in the adsorption column against values of a dimensionless number corresponding to the parameter based on each of the two analytical solutions) (pg. 6 Fig. 5); wherein there are two dimensionless times when the absolute differences between the LDF and FD equations are greatest: one before the intersection, and one afterwards (pg. 7 col. 1 para. 1); wherein LDF shows better agreement with the FD equation at low dimensionless time (pg. 9 col. 2 para. 3) and the dimensionless times value decreases in the adsorbing region between dimensionless driving adsorbate content (y) from −1 to −0.43 (i.e. reading on determining the optimal range for the parameter based on the data generated by using both analytical solutions) (pg. 10 col. 2 para. 2).
Claim 5 recites:
wherein the parameter of the adsorption column includes a length of the adsorption column, a diameter of the adsorption column, a ratio of length to diameter for the adsorption column, entry length of the adsorption column, adsorbate axial distribution of the adsorption column, a flow direction for the adsorption column, wavefront development through estimation of Schmidt number and/or axial Peclet number, or combinations thereof
• LeVan does not teach the recitation above. However, Raymond teaches the use of linear driving force equations (i.e. analytical solution for a Linear Driving Force model) and Fickian diffusion equations (i.e. analytical solution for a chromatography and ion exchange kinetic model) for cylindrical and spherical geometries while analyzing the relative error of the LDF approximation compared with the Fickian diffusion solution (pg. 1 Abstract); wherein solutions for cylindrical fibers are determined for length-to-diameter ratio of 5 and 20 (pg. 5 Fig. 4).
Claim 9 recites:
wherein the adsorbate comprises fluoride, urea, aldehyde, glycolic acid, acidic acid, sodium hydroxide, sodium acetate, polymeric compounds, cations, anions, or combinations thereof
• LeVan teaches design concepts for adsorption and ion exchange systems (pg. 4 Title and col. 1 para. 1); wherein fluoride sorbent is an example of alumina used as a material (pg. 9 Table 16-5).
Claim 10 recites:
wherein the adsorbent includes activated carbon, activated alumina, silica gel, a zeolite, a polymer, a resin, or combinations thereof
• LeVan teaches design concepts for adsorption and ion exchange systems (pg. 4 Title and col. 1 para. 1); wherein activated carbon-based applications are shown as examples for adsorption type of interaction (pg. 5 Table 16-1); wherein an acid passes downflow through the cation-exchange resin bed during ion-exchanger regeneration (i.e. a resin) (pg. 53 Fig. 16-42).
Claim 11 recites:
wherein the resin comprises an anionic strongly and/or weakly basic resin, a cationic strongly and/or weakly acidic resin, a specialized ion- exchange resin, or combinations thereof
• LeVan teaches design concepts for adsorption and ion exchange systems (pg. 4 Title and col. 1 para. 1); wherein an acid passes downflow through the cation-exchange resin bed during ion-exchanger regeneration (i.e. specialized ion- exchange resin) (pg. 53 Fig. 16-42).
Claim 14 recites:
wherein the adsorbent includes activated carbon
Claim 15 recites:
wherein the adsorbent includes activated alumina
Claim 16 recites:
wherein the adsorbent includes silica gel
Claim 17 recites:
wherein the adsorbent includes a zeolite
Claim 18 recites:
wherein the adsorbent includes a polymer
Claim 19 recites:
wherein the adsorbent includes a resin
• LeVan teaches design concepts for adsorption and ion exchange systems (pg. 4 Title and col. 1 para. 1); wherein activated carbon (i.e. wherein the adsorbent includes activated carbon as in claim 14), molecular sieves, silica gel (i.e. wherein the adsorbent includes silica gel as in claim 16) and activated alumina (i.e. wherein the adsorbent includes activated alumina as in claim 15) are used on large scale in order of sales volumes (pg. 4 col. 2 para. 2); wherein zeolite systems (i.e. wherein the adsorbent includes zeolite as in claim 17) are examples of adsorption interaction (pg. 5 Table 16-1); wherein polymer-based, synthetic ion-exchangers known as resins are available commercially in gel type or truly porous forms (i.e. wherein the adsorbent includes a polymer as in claim 18) (pg. 8 col. 2 para. 2); wherein an acid passes downflow through the cation-exchange resin bed (i.e. wherein the adsorbent includes a resin as in claim 19) during ion-exchanger regeneration (i.e. a resin) (pg. 53 Fig. 16-42).
Rationale for combining (MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claims 1, 5, 9-11 and 14-19, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, in the course of routine experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success, the methods of LeVan in view of Raymond because all references disclose methods for investigating analytical solutions for adsorption systems. The motivation would have been to determine ranges of applicability of the Linear Driving Force approximation (pg. 1 Abstract) and to address intraparticle diffusion modeling of adsorbate in microporous adsorbents (pg. 1 col. 2 para. 1-2 Raymond).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the analytical solutions for adsorption systems of LeVan to the methods by Raymond because such a substitution is no more than the simple substitution of one known element for another. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to motivated to combine the teachings in these references with a reasonable expectation of success since the described teachings pertain to methods for investigating analytical solutions for adsorption systems.
B. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over LeVan and Raymond as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Saadi ("Fixed-bed adsorption dynamics of Pb (II) adsorption from aqueous solution using nanostructured γ-alumina." Journal of Nanostructure in Chemistry 3(1):48 (2013)), as cited on the attached Form PTO-892.
Claim 2 recites:
wherein the ion exchange kinetic model includes a Thomas kinetic model for chromatography and ion exchange for adsorption column
• LeVan does not teach the recitation above. However, Saadi teaches the use of the Thomas model in continuous flow studies and column performance modeling where its derivation assumes Langmuir kinetics of adsorption-desorption and no axial dispersion (pg. 2 col. 2 para. 3).
Rationale for combining (MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claim 2, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, in the course of routine experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success, the methods of LeVan and Raymond in view of Saadi because all references disclose methods for investigating analytical solutions for adsorption systems. The motivation would have been to consider the effects of parameters such as flow rate, initial concentration, and fixed bed height on adsorption using Thomas modeling (pg. 2 col. 1 para. 4) Saadi).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the analytical solutions for adsorption systems of LeVan and Raymond to the methods by Saadi because such a substitution is no more than the simple substitution of one known element for another. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to motivated to combine the teachings in these references with a reasonable expectation of success since the described teachings pertain to methods for investigating analytical solutions for adsorption systems.
No prior art has been applied to the following claims
Claims 3-4, 6-8, 12-13 and 20 are free of the analogous art at least because close art, e.g. LeVan, Raymond and Saadi; as cited in the attached PTO-892 Form, either individually or in obvious combination, does not teach the recited combination of:
wherein the analytical solution for Thomas kinetic model includes:
PNG
media_image1.png
287
799
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
293
812
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(claim 3);
wherein the analytical solution for Linear Driving force model includes:
PNG
media_image3.png
58
201
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where c is a concentration of an adsorbate in the adsorption column; c0 is an initial concentration of the adsorbate; A is the area of normal curve of error; t is a time point at which the concentration of the adsorbate in the adsorption column is c, 0 is the time at a point of inflection in a breakthrough curve; N is a number of theoretical equivalent plates of the adsorbent column;
PNG
media_image4.png
37
107
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where D is a diffusion coefficient of the adsorbate in spherical particles; r is particle radius for the spherical particles (claim 4);
wherein the parameter is a length to diameter ratio of the adsorption column, and in the optimal range of the parameter, the data generated using both analytical solutions show substantially the same trend and a adsorption efficiency related variable reaches a global maximum and/or minimum value (claim 6).
wherein the parameter of the adsorption column is length to diameter ratio, and the optimal length to diameter ratio is in a range of 3.2 to 6.5 when the adsorption column containing an activated carbon adsorbent is used for adsorption of urea from a mixture of water dialysate containing ionic impurities (claim 12);
wherein the parameter of the adsorption column is length to diameter ratio, and the optimal length to diameter ratio is in a range of 2.2 to 5.5 when the adsorption column containing an ion-exchange resin adsorbent is used for adsorption of monoethylene glycol from water containing aldehyde, mixture of glycols, acids, bases, or combinations thereof (claim 13); and
"wherein the parameter of the adsorption column is length to diameter ratio, and the optimal length to diameter ratio is in a range of 2.2 to 5.5 when the adsorption column containing an ion-exchange resin adsorbent is used for adsorption of monoethylene glycol from water containing aldehyde" (claim 20).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCINI A FONSECA LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0899. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 5PM ET.
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, Olivia Wise can be reached at (571) 272-2249. 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.
/F.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1685
/JANNA NICOLE SCHULTZHAUS/Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights