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 filed on 02/10/2026 has been entered. Claim 5 is cancelled. Claims 1-4 and 6-14 remain pending and examined herein. Applicant’s amendment and remark have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 112(b) and 101 set forth in Office Action mailed on 10/17/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 9, filed 02/10/2026, with respect to rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-14 under 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-8, filed 02/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 13, and 14 under 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The remarks were directed to newly amended matter including how the abstract concept is being practically used to control the production of the reactor, which constitutes the integration of judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/10/2026 regarding the 102 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The features upon which applicant relies (i.e., b) a deviation between the reference trajectory and the production trajectory…wherein similarity in morphology is achieved when the underlying cluster mobility functions are similar) is recited as an Markush group/optional limitation. In the claim’s currently drafted form, the claim only requires the sensor to comprises an output for either for a) or b). As long as the prior art teaches an output for a), the rejection holds.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: processing device.
The specification defines processing device as CPU, computer processor, controller, etc. (para. [0366]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gerlinger (Dynamic Optimization and Non-linear Model Predictive Control to Achieve Targeted Particle Morphologies, 2018) as cited in IDS, as evidenced by Hamzehlou (A new approach for mathematical modeling of the dynamic development of particle morphology, 2016) as cited in previous Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Gerlinger discloses a method of producing a soft sensor for a reference morphology of multiphase latex polymer particles synthesized in a production process, for use in monitoring and/or controlling the production process and/or optimizing production capacities of the production process (Figure 1; section 1 page 324 column 1 paragraph 2 (In this research article, an emulsion polymerization…process is inherently transient); and section 3.2),
providing via an interface to a processing device (Controller, Section 4-5);
time series data from a reference polymerization process (Figure 8),
a morphology functional (Morphology model; 3.2 Morphology Model), wherein the morphology functional comprises a cluster mobility function (Gerlinger cited the model used is based on the model presented by Hamzehlou (reference [23], Page 327, left column, paragraph 3-right column, paragraph 4). Hamzehlou discloses a cluster mobility function (Movement to equilibrium, Eq. 16, 23, and 24), describing a mobility of the polymer cluster in the latex polymer particles during progress of the reaction process (Figure 2; 3.1. Material balances)) describing the mobility of polymer clusters in multiphase latex polymer particles (a fast mathematical model was developed for 2-phase polymer-polymer latex particles. 3.2 Morphology Model, paragraph 1) since the instance of the polymer cluster-formation during progression of a reaction process, by relating a movement of polymer clusters in multiphase latex polymer particles since the instance of polymer cluster formation to time series data of a reaction process (Figure 4 and 5) (Fig. 4 shows the final distribution of the equilibrium and non-equilibrium clusters of case A (hemispherical) and the morphology of 10 particles randomly selected among all for a case with a set of parameters and for the case that the movement towards the equilibrium position…In addition to the prediction of the final morphology, the model predicts the evolution of the particle morphology during the reaction. Fig. 5 shows the particle morphology evolution during the reaction by showing the distribution of the clusters at different conversions and their corresponding representative particle morphologies in 2D, 3D and TEM-like images in which the contrast is a function of the fraction of different phases at each point. Paragraphs 9-10),
determining at the processing device
a reference trajectory of the morphology functional (The optimized state trajectories for conversion and temperature are used as reference for the controller; Page 329, first column, paragraph 2) up to a reference observation point (normalized time of 1, Figure 5) along the reference reaction progression based on
the time series data from the reference polymerization process (Figure 8), and
the morphology functional (3.2 Morphology Model),
providing the soft sensor, the soft sensor comprising;
the reference trajectory of the morphology functional determined from the reference polymerization process (Fig. 6 shows the results of the dynamic optimization. The batch time is decreased by 6 % while the desired morphology is achieved and all constraints are satisfied. It can be seen that the monomer is fed much faster in the beginning than in the standard recipe.; Page 329, first column, paragraph 2),
the morphology functional (An NMPC requires accurate, yet computationally efficient models. Such a model accounting for kinetics [33] and morphology; Page 329, second column paragraph 2; Also 3.2. Morphology Model) and
a sensor input for receiving time series data from a production process (data provided by hard sensor; Section 5, page 331, first column, paragraphs 4-5) of the multiphase latex polymer particles (Figure 5; 3.2, Page 327, left column paragraph 2 and 6);
an output for
the reference trajectory of the morphology functional (standard dosing, Figure 6) and a production trajectory of the morphology functional for the production process (optimized dosing, Figure 6) and
using the soft sensor to control actuators of a production reactor to adjust at least one of flow rates or temperatures during the polymerization process based on the determined production trajectory of the morphology functional, wherein the control minimizes deviation between the production trajectory and the reference trajectory (The model predictive controller tracks the optimal concentration profiles. It uses the feed rates and jacket inlet temperature as manipulated variables, and optimizes these variables so as to hold the reactor temperature at setpoint and track the pre-calculated concentration profiles with high precision. Page 331, left col, para. 5).
Regarding claim 2, Gerlinger discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Gerlinger discloses the time series data from the reference polymerization process comprises a temperature of a reference reactor, flowrates of each ingredient fed (The standard operating procedure is an isothermal semi-batch process with constant monomer feeding. The main feeding period is followed by a post-polymerization phase. Only the monomer feeding profile is optimized. The reactor temperature and initiator flow rate are unchanged as in the standard recipe. Sec. 4, page 328, column 1, paragraph 2) into the reference reactor (Figure 2)(reference batch, Sec. 5.1, page 331, second column, first paragraph), and wherein the time series data for the production process comprises a temperature of a production reactor and flow rates of each ingredient fed into the production reactor (Figure 2) (After successful qualification of the reference batch, the closed loop controller was activated. Optimization of temperature control using the cooling circuit as degree of freedom, batch time optimization by increasing the feed rates as much as possibly… Sec. 5.1, page 331, second column, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 3, Gerlinger discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Gerlinger discloses the respective time series data comprises the respective initial amount of each ingredient fed into the reactor (Figure 6, monomer feed rate at normalized time of 0; Figure 8-9, monomer dosing at normalized time of 0.1).
Regarding claim 4, Gerlinger discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Gerlinger discloses the morphology functional depends on a quantity indicative of a polymer and/or monomer content inside the polymer matrix in the reaction process (The model first predicts the equilibrium morphology of the polymer particles and based on that different population balances are computed. The population balances…includes…diffusion of polymer from matrix; page 327, left column, paragraph 3) and a reaction progression variable (terms of growth of the clusters by polymerization; page 327, left column, paragraph 3) and wherein the time series data comprises data suitable for determining the reaction progression variable for the production process, the quantity indicative of a polymer and/or monomer content inside the polymer matrix in the production process (The parameters of the model such as: rate coefficients of aggregation, movement to the equilibrium position, mass transfer and rate coefficient of nucleation are dynamic as the medium of the polymerization changes during the polymerization, page 327, right column, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 6, Gerlinger discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Hamzehlou discloses the cluster mobility function depends on the quantity indicative of a polymer and/or monomer content inside the polymer matrix in the reaction process (3. Mathematical model, Page 657, paragraph 1; The polymer matrix contains all Polymer 1, and some Polymer 2 and Monomer 2) (Diffusion of polymer from polymer matrix, Eq. 10, 13, 16, 23, and 24).
Regarding claim 7, Gerlinger discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Hamzehlou discloses the cluster mobility function comprises a function of a particle matrix viscosity (It is worth pointing out that ka, kmov,
k
d
p
o
l
2
, are expected to be inversely proportional to the viscosity of the polymer matrix…and k is a constant varying from 1 to 3; page 659, right column, paragraphs 1-2, Eq. 17-19) (…at high conversions, almost all of the clusters are at the surface of the particle, but they have not aggregated completely to achieve the equilibrium morphology, the reason being the high viscosity of the polymer matrix that precludes the movement of the clusters. Page 660, Sec. 4.1, paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 8, Gerlinger discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Gerlinger discloses providing via an interface to a processing device the time series data of the reference polymerization process comprises providing the time series data via a client device, wherein the client device comprises a process unit (Intel, Core i7-4610M CPU @ 3GHz), and a client device communication interface (laptop) for communication with the interface (Page 327, right column, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 9, Gerlinger discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Gerlinger discloses a soft sensor comprising;
a reference trajectory of the morphology functional derived from a reference polymerization process (Fig. 6 shows the results of the dynamic optimization. The batch time is decreased by 6 % while the desired morphology is achieved and all constraints are satisfied. It can be seen that the monomer is fed much faster in the beginning than in the standard recipe.; Page 329, first column, paragraph 2),
the morphology functional (An NMPC requires accurate, yet computationally efficient models. Such a model accounting for kinetics [33] and morphology; Page 329, second column paragraph 2; Also 3.2. Morphology Model) and
a sensor input for receiving time series data from a production process (data provided by hard sensor; Section 5, page 331, first column, paragraphs 4-5) of the multiphase latex polymer particles (Figure 5; 3.2, Page 327, left column paragraph 2 and 6);
a controller unit comprising a processing device and outputs connected to actuator of a production reactor for controlling at least one of a flow rate or temperature during the polymerization process (The reactor is also equipped with temperature sensors for all the materials entering and leaving the system. The reactor is sealed in a thermos box to minimize heat loss. The primary control is programmed in Lab-manager using PID control functions; Page 331, left col, para. 1), and
an output for the reference trajectory of the morphology functional (standard dosing, Figure 6) and a production trajectory of the morphology functional for the production process (optimized dosing, Figure 6).
Regarding claim 10, Gerlinger discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 9. Gerlinger discloses a method for monitoring and/or controlling the morphology of multiphase latex polymer particles synthesized in a production process, comprising:
providing to a soft sensor according to claim 9 (See rejection of claim 9), time series data of the production process (data provided by hard sensor; Section 5, page 331, first column, paragraphs 4-5) and
determining the production trajectory (Figure 6) of the morphology functional based on
the morphology functional, wherein the morphology functional describes the movement of polymer clusters in multiphase latex polymer particles since the instance of the polymer cluster formation along a reaction progression, in the reaction process (An NMPC requires accurate, yet computationally efficient models. Such a model accounting for kinetics [33] and morphology; Page 329, second column paragraph 2; Also 3.2. Morphology Model), and
the time series data from the production process (data provided by hard sensor; Section 5, page 331, first column, paragraphs 4-5)
determining a monitoring and/or control signal associated with the determined production trajectory of the morphology functional, and the reference trajectory of the morphology functional (Figure 2, signals are interpreted as the arrows in the control diagram),
providing a monitoring and /or control signal via an output interface (Figure 8-10, setpoint vs measured; actual vs optimal).
Regarding claim 11, Gerlinger discloses a method of optimizing capacity of a production process while maintaining a reference morphology, comprising:
providing constraints to a processing device (Constraints related to safety, such as temperature or amount of unreacted monomer are included in the problem formulation…To reach the target morphology at the end of the feeding period an endpoint constraint is imposed. Section 4, paragraphs 2-3),
providing the soft sensor according to claim 9 (see rejection of claim 1 and 9),
determining with the processing device an optimal production capacity, based on the constraints (Efficient strategies for dynamic optimization and advanced process control: Model-based control and optimization strategies and tools are needed to estimate the current process states using measurements (temperature, concentrations, flow rates) which are then used to predict, monitor and control the process ensuring the objectives (e.g., product quality and amount) are achieved, while maintaining process constraints (e.g., safety, pumps, and cooling capacity. Introduction, Page 324, left column, paragraph 4) and a reference trajectory of the morphology functional, such that the production trajectory of the morphology functional matches (Figure 8-10, the optimal and actual closely matches; setpoint and measured closely matches)
Regarding claim 12, Gerlinger discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Gerlinger discloses a system comprising an input interface (hard sensors, Section 6, page 333, right column), an output interface (Software used to graph Fig. 3-10), and a processor (NMPC controller, Section 4), wherein the processor is configured for performing the method (See rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Gerlinger discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Gerlinger discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that (The NMPC was implemented using Cy-bernetica CENIT, Sec. 4, page 331, left column, paragraph 4), that when run on a processing device (controller) performs the method (See rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Gerlinger discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 9. Gerlinger discloses a system comprising:
a production reactor (lab reactor, Page 331, left col, para. 1) comprising actuator for controlling at least one of a flow rate or a temperature (It is equipped with the essential sensors to enclose the energy balance around the reactor. These involve flow meters for the coolant fluid and for the reactor feeds via four weighing scales and pumps. The reactor is also equipped with temperature sensors for all the materials entering and leaving the system. The reactor is sealed in a thermos box to minimize heat loss. Page 331, left col, para. 1),
the soft sensor according to claim 9 (See rejection of claim 9), wherein the output of the soft sensor connected to the actuators of the production reactor (Page 331, left col, para. 2-4) and
a monomer suitable for emulsion polymerization (monomer 1 and 2, Figure 8-10).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICKEY HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30 PM 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, 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.
/M.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights