Jump to content

Patent Application 17520238 - MATERIAL SYNTHESIS APPARATUS AND OPERATING - Rejection

From WikiPatents

Patent Application 17520238 - MATERIAL SYNTHESIS APPARATUS AND OPERATING

Title: MATERIAL SYNTHESIS APPARATUS AND OPERATING METHOD THEREOF

Application Information

  • Invention Title: MATERIAL SYNTHESIS APPARATUS AND OPERATING METHOD THEREOF
  • Application Number: 17520238
  • Submission Date: 2025-05-20T00:00:00.000Z
  • Effective Filing Date: 2021-11-05T00:00:00.000Z
  • Filing Date: 2021-11-05T00:00:00.000Z
  • National Class: 700
  • National Sub-Class: 268000
  • Examiner Employee Number: 85592
  • Art Unit: 1758
  • Tech Center: 1700

Rejection Summary

  • 102 Rejections: 0
  • 103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text


    DETAILED ACTION

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 .

Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 3/26/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. 
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04.
Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation: “a synthesis device configured to perform a synthesis of a target product” is unclear. The claimed synthesis device is not defined with any specific structural elements. It is unclear how the claimed device (labeled a synthesis device) is structurally capable of perform a synthesis of a material/product. 
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if applicant intends to positively claim: (a) an external apparatus; and (b) a device capable of training synthesis prediction model used by the external apparatus, as part of the claimed subject matter. 
Claim 1 is drafted in a way that (a) and (b) are not required to be elements of the instant invention. While applicant may intend for (a) and (b) to be elements of the invention, there is no requirement for (a) and (b) to be elements of the instant invention/system. The elements (a) and (b) can be elements of a separate system(s) to which the claimed system is or may be operably connected to.
The claim as drafted only requires that the communication interface to be structurally capable of receiving data from another system. If applicant intends for such structures to be considered elements of the invention, the examiner requires applicant to clarify this by amending the claim to positively list the elements (a) and (b) in the claim. 
As currently presented, the recitation: “the first synthesis method being calculated by an external apparatus using a previously trained synthesis prediction model” has no patentable weight. The same applies to much of the processor limitations, which are drafted as if the calculation of the first synthesis method or the first synthesis is not part of the claimed subject matter. 
Applicant appears to attempt to further define the claimed elements in relationship to how applicant intends for the respective elements to be used or function with the unclaimed (a) and (b). The structure of a device is not defined or further structurally limited by applicant’s intended use/function of the device with other unclaimed elements. 
Functional limitation(s) should reflect a functional relationship(s) between claimed elements and should functionally limit the combination of the claimed elements where specific structural corporative relationships of the claimed elements are recited.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation: “the first synthesis method being calculated by an external apparatus using a previously trained synthesis prediction model” is unclear. The claim does not recite anything about training any synthesis prediction model beforehand. It is unclear what applicant means by “pretrained.” The specification does not appear to make it clear what it means by: “pretrained” or previously trained. 
None of the claims 1-10 actually recites: (1) anything about training any synthesis prediction model beforehand; and/or (2) that the pretrained synthesis prediction model is claimed as part of the claimed subject matter. 
Claims 1-10 are directed towards an apparatus. The structure of an apparatus: is not defined or further structurally limited by applicant’s intended use/function of the device with other unclaimed elements; and/or is not defined or further structurally limited by process which took place someplace else. The metes and bound of the claims are unclear. None of the claims remedy the above noted issues. 
Claim 2, for instance renders the claims 1 and 2 even more unclear. What does applicant mean by: “configured to transmit a first synthesis result?” What does applicant mean by “result?” Claims 1 or 2 does not recite anything about performing something such that there may be a result of something. 
The examiner omits raising similar/same issues. Claims 1-10 are replete with vague process steps which are not logically tied to one another. Much of the claimed limitations merely recites applicant's intended purpose/function of the claimed device. Mere statement of purpose/function can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the specification to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim. The examiner is not stating that the claim can be interpreted in many ways; nor equating the breath of the claim with indefiniteness. The examiner is stating that the determination for the scope of the claim can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the record. 

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention 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 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary.  Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 20200379442).
Regarding claims 1-10, Chan discloses (entire disclosure) a computer-implemented method of process modeling and simulation. The method involves: modeling a chemical process of a subject industrial plant, the modeling being performed by a processor and including generating a model that predicts progress of the chemical process; and based on predictions made by the generated model, enabling improvements in performance of the chemical process at the subject industrial plant, the generated model including a hybrid model formed of a first principles model having at least one element enhanced by a machine learning model of the chemical process.
Computer-based process modeling and simulation methods and systems combine first principles models and machine learning models to benefit where either model is lacking. In one example, input values (measurements) are adjusted by first principles techniques. A machine learning model of the chemical process of interest is trained on the adjusted values. In another example, a machine learning model represents the residual (delta) between a first principles model prediction and empirical data. Residual machine learning models correct physical phenomena predictions in a first principles model of the chemical process. In another example, a first principles simulation model uses the process input data and predictions of the machine learning model to generate simulated results of the chemical process. The hybrid models enable a process engineer to troubleshoot the chemical process, enable debottlenecking the chemical process, enable optimizing performance of the chemical process at the subject industrial plant, and enable automated process control. 
[0007] Likewise, a computer-implemented process modeling and simulation system comprises: a modeling subsystem, and an interface. The modeling subsystem generates the model of the chemical process of interest. The interface is coupled to the modeling subsystem in a manner that enables improvements in performance of the chemical process at the subject industrial plant based on predictions made by the generated model. The generated model includes a hybrid model formed of a first principles model having at least one element enhanced by a machine learning model of the chemical process. The interface enables improved performance of the chemical process by any of: enabling a process engineer to troubleshoot the chemical process, enabling debottlenecking of the chemical process, and optimizing performance of the chemical process at the subject industrial plant. In some embodiments the modeling subsystem is a modeling assembly, unit, engine, or the like.
Chan does not explicitly disclose that the modeling is performed beforehand, i.e. pretrained. However, Chan teaches that the first step is modeling a chemical process of a subject industrial plant, the modeling being performed by a processor and including generating a model that predicts progress of the chemical process. The examiner respectfully submits that Chan inherently or at least obvious teach pretrained model. 
Chan also does not explicitly disclose that the “chemical process” may be about synthesizing a material/target product. 
However, Chan teaches that the computer process modelling may be applied to “pharmaceuticals production, petroleum refining, polymer processing, and so on” ([0047). The examiner respectfully submits that one skilled in the art would have been motivated to apply the computer process modelling any chemical production. The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.  If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
Chan does not explicitly state that the commands for synthesis is scheduled and the synthesis device is controlled in view of the schedule. However, the examiner respectfully submits that Chan inherently or at least obviously discloses such scheduling. Chan’s device will have to execute commands before synthesis. The recitation: “schedule an order…” does not inherently require any specific time frame of scheduling or any specific action other than that the processor is commanding the synthesis device to execute commands. Chan’s device would have to do this first step before synthesizing something. 



Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHOGO SASAKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7071. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00-6:00.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at 5712707698. 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.

SHOGO . SASAKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1798



/SHOGO SASAKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758                                                                                                                                                                                                        5/16/2025


Retrieved from "https://wikipatents.org/index.php?title=Patent_Application_17520238_-_MATERIAL_SYNTHESIS_APPARATUS_AND_OPERATING_-_Rejection&oldid=610389"
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.