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 .
This Office Action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed August 25, 2025 wherein claims 22-34 and 36-47 are currently pending and claims 21-33 have been withdrawn due to a restriction requirement.
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 34 and 36-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a method for selecting compositions that generate a desired response comprising identifying a desired response in a subject; identifying an odorant that produces the desire response, selecting an Aromagraph associated with the desired response from a database of Aromagraphs, and identifying a composition comprising the odorant that matches the selected Aromagraph.
Regarding claims 34 and 36-47, the limitation of identifying a desired response in a subject, identifying an odorant that produces the desired response, selecting the Aromagraph associated with the desired response from a database of Aromagraphs and identifying the composition comprising the odorant that matches the selected Aromagraph, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind. Furthermore, the steps described in the process are routine and conventional. The remaining limitations of the claim do not require substantially more than the limitations qualifying as a mental process. As such, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or 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.
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.
Claims 34 and 36-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al (WO 00/40343).
With regards to claim 34, Schneider et al. teach a method for scent reproduction technology called ScentEmitTM wherein a set of individual odorant molecules can replicate any desired scent. Schneider et al. teach the method determines the relative amounts of individual odorant molecules that bind to separate olfactory proteins to provide a method to map odors in coordinates to mimic any coordinate; Schneider et al. further teach the method comprises quantitative determination of the relative amounts of individual odorant molecules that bind to separate olfactory proteins providing a method to map odors in coordinates and to combine specific odorant molecules to mimic any coordinate in the ScentSpace to construct a "scentprint" system able to reproduce any odor (page 35 line 26 – page 36 line 4) thereby reading on “identifying a desired response in a subject” and “identifying an odorant that produces the desired response”. Schneider et al. teach the method comprises ScentScanTM technology which utilizes technology to detect odor wherein olfactory receptors are linked to signal transduction/amplification cascades as the basis of odor detection (page 14 lines 13-15) thereby reading on “selecting an Aromagraph associated with the desired response from a database of Aromagraphs” as required by the instant claim. Aromagraph is defined in paragraph 22 of the instant specification as a digital representation of the response to an odorant by an olfactory receptor. As such, the cascades of Schneider et al. are digital representations of the response of an odorant by an olfactory receptor and thereby read on the Aromagraph as required by the instant claim and “identifying a composition comprising the odorant that matches the selected Aromagraph as required by the instant claim”. Schneider et al. teach G-protein coupled receptor Biosensors and sense replication systems (Title of p. 1) thereby reading on the binding of a plurality of olfactory receptor biosensors as required by the instant claim.
With regards to claim 36, Schneider et al. teach mammalian olfactory receptors (p. 14 line 13).
With regards to claim 37, Schneider et al. teach the composition in the form of a solution (p. 48 line 27).
With regards to claim 38, Scheider et al. teach the composition is an aerosol (page 36 line 11).
With regards to claim 39, Schneider et al. teach the composition is a solid (page 12 line 24).
With regards to claim 40, Schneider et al. teach the response is well-being (p. 38 line 9).
With regards to claim 41, Schneider et al. teach stimulant entities comprise odorant molecules (claim 19).
With regards to claim 42, Schneider et al. teach the database measures the level of the desired response (p. 35 line 5).
With regards to claims 43-44, Schneider et al. teach sniffer dogs (page 1 line 15) and a human panel used to detect texture, concentration of chemicals in food (page 2 line 20) wherein the dogs share a characteristic (they are all sniffer dogs), and the dogs and the humans read on a demographic characteristic and a geographic location because the human panel and sniffer dogs referenced are interpreted as being in one geographic location.
With regards to claim 45, Schneider et al. teach the desired response is an odor (p. 13 line 5).
With regards to claims 46-47, Schneider et al. teach desired response is a taste (p. 20 line 4) wherein the taste is salty, umami, sour, sweet, bitter, among others (p. 22 lines 6-7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument - Applicant argues that the evaluation of the claims for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 was not complete.
Response - Without acquiescing with the argument, the requested evaluation is as follows as well as the suggested evaluation for a human response under the MPEP.
Step 1: The statutory class is for a method, however, the MPEP states in 2106.4(a)(2) that for mental processes the claims may be a product or a process, therefore, this is irrelevant.
Step 2A: As stated above, the claims are classified as an abstract idea being that it is a mental process in identifying the desired response in the subject.
Step 2B: The claims do not recite additional elements that significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is based on identifying the desired response of a subject and selecting a Aromagraph based on that response, which are all considered part or based on the human process.
The MPEP further states that for mental process claims undergo the following evaluation:
A: A claim with limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind does not recite a mental process: The claims require the evaluation of the response of the subject, a human, in order to select a desired Aromagraph. Therefore, the limitations do require the performance of the human mind.
B. A claim that encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with or without a physical aid recites a mental process: The claims require the human to have a response and an evaluation of said response. Therefore, reads on mental process.
C. A claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process.
D. Both product and process claims may recite a mental process. This application is a process claim.
Based on both forms of evaluation, the claims fall under a mental process and, thus an abstract idea.
Argument - Applicant argues that the art uses AI to mimic the G-protein wherein the claim uses a stimulus identified from a living subject and then cross referenced against an aromagraph.
Response - As stated above, aromagraph is defined in the specification as a digital representation of the response to an odorant by an olfactory receptor. Schneider teaches the selection of a fragrance based on a response, as does the claim. The computer in the art is meant to simulate the response from a person. Therefore, both the claims and the present invention are being used in order to achieve a response from a human subject.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WHITELEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5203. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 5:00.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 5712721130. 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.
/JESSICA WHITELEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763