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 .
Specification
Specification is objected to because of the following informalities: At Page 10, last full Paragraph, there is no table 2 as described in this Paragraph.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Yes.
Claim 1 recites “a method for analyzing sources… collecting…determining…plotting…recognizing…and calculating a relative contribution rate of the pollution end-member, to obtain an analysis result for the source of isotopes” which is a process.
Step 2, Prong One: Judicial exception? Yes.
Claim 1 recites a mathematical concept (see step “calculating a relative contribution rate of the pollution end-member…isotopes”) and a mental process (the combination of steps recites a mental process).
The claim when viewed as a whole recites an abstract idea, e.g. mental process. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations is that those limitations fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
The recited steps “collecting…determining…plotting…recognizing…and calculating a relative contribution rate of the pollution end-member, to obtain an analysis result for the source of isotopes” encompasses data gathering, observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion.
The steps are not performed by any particular machine.
Further, the recited limitation “calculating…” is further defined in claims 8 and 9 are mathematical calculation/concept (see claims 8 and 9).
Step 2, Prong Two: Practical application? No.
The recited steps when viewed as a whole, individually or in ordered combination does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recited steps do not show in details how to accomplish each limitation. The steps are not performed by any particular devices. The recited devices are tools used to perform the abstract idea.
The recited step “calculating…to obtain an analysis result for the source isotopes” encompasses an insignificant extra solution. The “(obtained) analysis result for the source isotopes” is insignificant extra solution which is data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Further, each recited step in claim 1 is not performed by any particular machine.
Claim 1 when viewed as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a), the claim as a whole does not provide an improvement to other technology or technical field. The claim limitations as recited when viewed as a whole do not include steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
Step 2B: Step 2B: the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, for reasons that are analogous to the discussion of additional elements at Prong 2.
Independent claim 10 recites a system for analyzing sources of bimetallic isotopes of Cd/Pb combined pollution of soil which does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via modules such as sample collection module, a sample determination module, a plotting module, a recognition and confirmation module and a calculation module. In other words, the system claim and the product claim are no different from the method claim 1 in substance; the method claim recites the abstract idea while the device claim recites generic components configured to implement the same abstract idea. The claims do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
The recited modules in claim 10 are not particular machine.
Dependent claims 2 and 3 add limitations which are data gathering merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claims 4-7 add limitations which encompasses an insignificant extra solution merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Further, claim 5 recites a spectrometer which is not a particular machine. Instead, the spectrometer is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 8 and 9 add limitations when viewed as a whole recite a mathematical calculation/concept merely extending abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wen et al. “Tracing sources of pollution in soils from the finding Pb-Zn mining district in China using cadmium and lead isotopes. Applied Geochemistry, November 2014, vol. 52, pages 147-154, ISSN: 0883-2927 (hereinafter ‘Zen) (submitted by Applicants).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Zen discloses a method for analyzing sources of bimetallic isotopes of Cd/Pb combined pollution of soil, characterized in that, it comprises the following steps:
collecting respectively a soil sample and risk source samples through a sample collection device, to obtain the soil sample and the risk source samples respectively (Page 8, section 2.2-sampling);
determining respectively Cd isotope ratio and Pb isotope ratio of the soil sample and the risk source samples, to obtain the Cd isotope ratio and the Pb isotope ratio of the soil sample, and the Cd isotope ratio and the Pb isotope ratio of the risk source samples (Pages 8-11, Section 3: Element and isotope analysis, Pb and Cd isotopes analysis at Pages 9 and 10);
plotting by using the Cd isotope ratio and the Pb isotope ratio of the soil sample as coordinates, and plotting by using the Cd isotope ratio and the Pb isotope ratio of the risk source samples as coordinates, to obtain a projection plot of the isotope ratios (see plotting at Figs. 2-6 at Pages 16-24);
recognizing a pollution end-member polluting farmland soil through the projection plot of the isotope ratios to obtain a recognition result for the pollution end-member, and then confirming the pollution end-member (Section 4 at Pages 16-24, see end-member shown at Figs. 2-6). calculating a relative contribution rate of the pollution end-member, to obtain an analysis result for the source of isotopes (Page 12: relative contribution).
Regarding claim 2, Zen discloses characterized in that, the step of collecting the soil sample is particularly to collect the soil sample through the sample collection device to obtain the soil samples at different distances; the step of collecting the risk source samples is particularly to collect different types of risk source samples, including the first type of risk source samples, the second type of risk source samples, the third type of risk source samples, the fourth type of risk source samples and the fifth type of risk source samples (See Section 2.2 Sampling).
Regarding claim 3, Zen discloses collecting the soil sample is particularly to collect in different orientations through the sample collection device; collecting the risk source samples is particularly to collect different types of risk source samples, including the first type of risk source samples, the second type of risk source samples, the third type of risk source samples, the fourth Claims type of risk source samples and the fifth type of risk source samples (see Section 2.2. Sampling).
Regarding claim 4, Zen discloses The method for analyzing the sources of bimetallic isotopes of Cd/Pb combined pollution of soil according to claim 1, characterized in that, the Cd isotope ratio is expressed as d114/1"0Cd, and the Pb isotope ratio is expressed as 208Pb/206Pb and206Pb/207Pb (see Zen: Table 1 at Page 13 and see Pages 14 and Page 18 for d114/110Cd).
Conclusion
Claims 5-9 are patentably distinguishable over the prior art of record.
Lee (USPAP. 20160187312) (submitted by Applicants) discloses in a method of resolving a contribution ratio to soil contamination by a plurality of polluters through a sequential extraction scheme and a stable isotope analysis scheme, Pb stable isotopes are eluted at 5 types of “cation exchange fraction”, “carbonate fraction”, “iron-oxide and manganese hydroxide-fraction”, “organic matters and sulfide fraction”, and “residual fraction” existing at other types and separated from each other in each step. The Pb stable isotopes obtained in each step are analyzed. The contribution ratio to soil contamination by the polluters is resolved through a predetermined resolving equation using the content of a Pb stable isotope in each step based on the content ratio of the Pb stable isotopes. The Pb stable isotopes are .sup.206Pb and .sup.207Pb (Abstract; Pars. 37-46 and 80-122).
Regarding claim 5, Zen discloses determining the Cd isotope ratios and the Pb isotope ratios of the soil sample and the risk source samples as recited in claims 1 and 4. However, Zen and the closest prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the combination wherein “determining the Cd isotope ratios and the Pb isotope ratios of the soil sample and the risk source samples is particularly as follows: determining Cd stable isotope ratio: loading 2.8 mL of AG MP-1 M resin into a separation column…as an internal standard” in combination with other limitations in the claims as defined by Applicants.
Regarding claim 6, the closest prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the combination wherein “the method for analyzing the sources of bimetallic isotopes of Cd/Pb combined pollution of soil according to claim 1, characterized in that, the specific step of plotting by using the Cd isotope ratio and the Pb isotope ratio of the soil sample as coordinates, and plotting by using the Cd isotope ratio and the Pb isotope ratio of the risk source samples as coordinates to obtain the projection plot of the isotope ratios is particularly as follows: plotting by using the Cd isotope ratio of the soil sample as abscissa and the Pb isotope ratio of the soil sample as ordinate; and plotting by using the the Cd isotope ratio of the risk source samples as abscissa and the Pb isotope ratio of the risk source samples as ordinate, to obtain the projection plot of the isotope ratios having consistent abscissa and ordinate, with the abscissa being the Cd isotope and the ordinate being the Pb isotope.” in combination with other limitations in the claims as defined by Applicants.
Regarding claim 7, the closest prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the combination wherein “the step of recognizing the pollution end-member polluting farmland soil through the projection plot of the isotope ratios to obtain the recognition result for the pollution end-member, and then confirming the pollution end-member, is particularly as follows: the projection points of the ratio of isotopes polluting farmland soil are within the range surrounded by the projection points of the isotope ratios for various pollution end-members, therefore, various risk sources that are close to and surround the projection points of the ratios for isotopes polluting farmland soil can be recognized as the pollution end-member” in combination with other limitations in the claims as defined by Applicants.
Regarding claim 8, the closest prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the combination wherein “the step of calculating the relative contribution rate of the pollution end-member, to obtain the analysis result for the source of isotopes is particularly as follows: calculating the relative contribution rates of different pollution end-members to Cd and Pb in polluted farmland soil through calculation formulas for analyzing the source.” in combination with other limitations in the claims as defined by Applicants.
Regarding claim 9, the closest prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the combination wherein “the calculation formulas for analyzing the source are particularly as follows…end-members of A, B, C, and D” in combination with other limitations in the claims as defined by Applicants.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPAP 20190064135 discloses a method for tracing wine origin based on multielements and stable isotopes, comprising the steps of:
1) collecting wine samples from a plurality of origins;
2) filtering each of the wine samples collected in step 1) using a pore size of 0.22 μm aqueous filter membrane, and pouring 1.5 ml of a filtrate into an autosampler vial for carbon stable isotope ratio analysis of ethanol and glycerol; pouring 0.3 ml of the wine sample into a 12 ml glass tube with stopper for analyzing oxygen stable isotopes in the water; and pouring 0.5 ml of the wine sample into a 15 ml centrifuge tube, and adding 0.5 ml of concentrated HNO.sub.3, performing digestion overnight, and diluting to a constant volume of 10 ml to be tested; 3) performing carbon stable isotope analysis, oxygen stable isotope ratio analysis and elemental analysis, respectively; 4) utilizing information of the origins of the wine samples and analytical data of step 3) to perform statistical modeling to obtain a wine origin discrimination model coefficient matrix and a corresponding predicted accuracy rate of the origin discrimination;
5) performing origin discrimination by using an unknown sample in the model, and ultimately determining attributes of the wine origin (Abstract; Pars. 24-32).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-2718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/PHUONG HUYNH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 August 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights