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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and are herein under examination.
Claims 1-18 are rejected.
Claims 1, 7, 9-11, 13-14 and 16-17 are objected.
Priority
The instant application claims domestic benefit as a 371 filing of PCT/EP2021/056334 filed 03/12/2021, which claims foreign priority to European Application No. EP20163091.0 filed 03/13/2020. The claims to domestic benefit and foreign priority are acknowledged. As such, the effective filing date for claims 1-18 is 03/13/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 09/07/2022, 01/24/2023, 12/12/2024, and 09/18/2025 follow the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered in full. A signed copy of the list of references cited from these IDS are included with this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 100, 200, and 300 on pg. 29, line 9.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 10, 20, 30 and 40 in Figure 1.
The drawings are objected as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) because some view numbers are not preceded by abbreviation “FIG.” and the partial views must be followed by a capital letter. Figures 1, 2, 6 and 8 should be “FIG. 1”, “FIG. 2”, “FIG. 6” and “FIG. 8”. Figure 5 should be “FIG. 5A” and “FIG. 5B”. In FIG. 4 the a, b, c and d should be capitalized.
The drawings are objected as failing to comply with 608.01(f) because the brief description of drawings does not recite FIG. 4A, FIG. 4B, FIG 4C, or FIG. 4D.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites more than 150 words, contains the letter “o” randomly in various sentences that should be removed, and recites “oil- containing” instead of “oil-containing”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 9-11, 13-14 and 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 7 and 9, should have a semicolon after device.
Claim 1, line 14, recites “parameters,” which should be “parameters; and”.
Claim 1, lines 17-18, recite “cosmetics and/or” and “parameters and/ or” which should recite “cosmetics, and/or” and “parameters, and/or”.
Claim 7 should recite “wherein the oil-containing product” to properly refer to claim 1.
Claim 9, line 5, recites “component,” which should be “component, and”.
Claim 9, lines 6-7, recites “target performance of … properties” which should be “target performance properties of”.
Claim 10, lines 2-4, recites “the target performance properties of a specific oil or a mixture of oils and/or a specific surfactant or a specific further component or a specific mixture of surfactant and the further component” which should be “the target performance properties of the specific oil or the mixture of oils and/or the specific surfactant or the specific further component or the specific mixture of surfactant and the further component”. This is to properly refer to antecedent basis in claim 8.
Claim 11 recites “parameters, further” which should be “parameters and further”.
Claim 13, line 3, recites “component and/or, wherein step” which should recite “component, and/or wherein the step”.
Claim 13, line 5, recites “component and or comprises” which appears that it should recite “component and/or comprises”.
Claim 14, recites “the target performance properties of a specific oil or a mixture of oils for cosmetics” which should recite “the target performance properties of the specific oil or the mixture of oils for cosmetics” to properly refer to claim 8, line 3.
Claim 16, line 6, recites “(18), and” which should be “(18) and”.
Claim 17, line 2, should have a comma after device.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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 1-15 and 18 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.
Claims dependent from a rejected claim are also rejected, unless otherwise noted.
Claim 1, lines 10-11, recites “determining … determined performance properties” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if this means that previously determined properties are being determined again or if it means “determining performance properties” (i.e., the properties are not previously determined). To overcome this rejection, clarify interpretation of this limitation.
Claim 2 recites “the ratio” which lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the ratio is. For example, it could be a number of different oils to a number of different surfactants/further components, or it could be a ratio of volumes. Provide antecedent basis and clarify what the ratio is.
Claims 5-6 recite “the performance properties of each of the different oils and/or surfactant and the further component” which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 determines performance properties of the product but does no recite a performance property for each oil, the at least one surfactant, and the further component.
Claim 8 recites “the processing device” which renders the claims indefinite. It is unclear which processing device is being referenced because claim 1 recites “a processing device” in lines 6-7 and line 10. Clarify which processing device is being referenced.
Claim 10, line 2, recites “the processing device” which renders the claims indefinite. It is unclear which processing device is being referenced because claim 1 recites “a processing device” in lines 6-7 and line 10. Clarify which processing device is being referenced.
Claim 10, line 7, recites “the target performance requirements” which lacks antecedent basis. Provide antecedent basis.
Claim 10, line 8, recites “the output channel” which lacks antecedent basis. Provide antecedent basis.
Claim 12 recites “the target performance properties” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which target performance properties are being referenced because claim 8 recites target performance properties are provided for a specific oil, a mixture of oils, etc. Clarify which target properties are being referenced.
Claim 13, line 2, recites “the measure for the ratio of the different oils and/or the surfactant or the further component” which lacks antecedent basis. Provide antecedent basis.
Claim 13, lines 3 and 5, recites “the surfactant” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which surfactant is being referenced because claim 1 recites “at least one surfactant.” Clarify which surfactant is being referenced.
Claim 13, lines 2 and 4, recite “the composition parameter” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which composition parameter is being reference because claim 11 recites “composition parameters”. Clarify which parameter is being referenced.
Claim 15 recites “the target performance properties of a specific surfactant or a specific further component” which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 8, lines 3-4, recites “target performance properties of … surfactant and the further component” but does not recite target properties for a specific surfactant or a specific further component. Clarify antecedent basis.
Claim 18 recites “the use of a system according to claim 16” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if “a system” refers to a system similar to the system in claim 16, or if “a system” should actually be “the system”. It’s also unclear whether “the use of a system according to claim 16” means that a system performs the steps for which the system in claim 16 is programmed for, or if it means that the system of claim 16 can be used for any process. Clarify how claim 18 should be interpreted.
35 USC 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7 recites “at least two different oils” which fails to further limit claim 1 because claim 1 already recites “the oil-containing product for cosmetics comprising different oils”, which indicates at least two different oils.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Non-statutory subject matter
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is directed to non-statutory subject matter (Step 1: NO). Claim 17 recites “a computer program product” without reciting any structural component and therefore equates to “software per se”, which is not a statutory category of invention (MPEP 2106.03.I).
Claim 17 could be amended to recite statutory subject matter by storing the program in a non-transitory computer-readable medium as recited on specification page 18. Regardless, this amendment would still result in a rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for recitation of a judicial exception without significantly more. In the interest of compact prosecution, claim 17 has been analyzed below under 35 U.S.C. 101 as if it recited statutory subject matter of a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Statutory subject matter
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea and a natural phenomenon without significantly more.
Step 1:
Step 1 asks whether the claims recite statutory subject matter. Claims 1-15 recite a method, claim 16 recites a system, claim 17 recites a CRM, and claim 18 recites a method. As such, these claims recite statutory subject matter (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims that recite statutory subject matter are analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 1 to determine if they recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomena. The instant claims recite the following limitations that equate to one or more categories of judicial exception:
Claims 1 and 16 recite “… for determining performance properties of an oil-containing and/or surfactant-containing product for cosmetics, the oil-containing product for cosmetics comprising different oils forming a mixture and/or the surfactant-containing product for cosmetics comprises at least one surfactant and further component forming the mixture, determining … determined performance properties of the oil-containing and/or the surfactant-containing product for cosmetics comprising the mixture, based on the data driven model and/or the rigorous model and the composition parameters;”
Claim 4 recites “deriving performance properties for each of the oils and/or surfactant and the further component from the identifier.”
Claim 5 recites “wherein the performance properties of each of the different oils and/or surfactant and the further component relate to physico-chemical properties of each of the different oils and/or surfactant and the further component.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the performance properties of each of the different oils and/or surfactant and the further component relate to sensory properties of each of the different oils and/or surfactant and the further component.
Claim 7 recites “wherein oil-containing product for cosmetics comprises at least two different oils, at least three different oils., or at least four different oils.
Claim 9 recites “providing an identifier of a specific oil or a specific mixture of oils and/or a specific surfactant or a specific further component or a specific mixture of surfactant and the further component, deriving the target performance of the specific oil or the specific mixture of oils properties and/or of the specific surfactant or the specific further component or the specific mixture of surfactant and the further component from the identifier of the specific oil or the specific mixture of oils and/or of the specific surfactant or the specific further component or the specific mixture of surfactant and the further component.”
Claim 10 recites “wherein the method further comprises the step of comparing … the target performance properties of a specific oil or a mixture of oils and/or a specific surfactant or a specific further component or a specific mixture of surfactant and the further component for cosmetics with the determined performance properties of the oil-containing and/or the surfactant-containing product for cosmetics and deriving a result of the comparing step, wherein the step of comparing comprises comparing if the target performance requirements are met.”
Claim 11 recites “the step of varying the composition parameters.”
Claim 12 recites “further comprising the step of repeating the method, until the target performance properties are met.”
Claim 13 recites “wherein the step of varying the composition parameter comprises varying the measure for the ratio of the different oils and/or the surfactant or the further component and/or, wherein step of varying the composition parameter comprises changing at least one identifier of the different oils and/or the surfactant or the further component and or comprises adding an additional identifier of an oil and/or of a surfactant or of a further component.”
Limitations reciting a mental process.
Claims 1, 4, 9-11, 13 and 16-18 contain limitations recited at such a high level of generality that they equate to a mental process because they are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), which the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind. The paragraphs below discuss the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the limitations in these claims that recite a mental process.
Claims 1 and 16-18 recite determining performance properties using a model and composition parameters. This includes using a linear regression as recited in specification pgs. 27-28. A human can input data and perform calculations of a linear regression. Claim 4 includes using the name of an oil/surfactant/further component to look up physio-chemical properties. Claim 9 includes displaying names of components in a mixture and determining a desired physiochemical property of a specific based on the composition of the mixture. Claim 10 includes comparing data and making determinations. Claims 11 and 13 include changing ratios of mixtures and adding or removing an oil in a mixture.
Limitations reciting a mathematical concept.
Claims 1 and 16-18 recite determining properties using a model and composition parameters which includes performing calculations using a linear regression to derive numerical values, as discussed in specification pages 27-28. This limitation is similar to the concepts of organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)), which the courts have identified as mathematical concepts.
Limitations included in the recited judicial exception.
Claims 5-7 are includes in the judicial exception in claim 1 of determining performance properties because they further limit the type of property being determined.
Claim 12 is being interpreted as a contingent limitation and is thus not required by the claim. Claim 12 is contingent upon determining that target performance requirements are not met in claim 10. However, there is an instance where they are met in claim 10 and thus claim 12 is not required.
As such, claims 1-18 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
Additional Elements:
Once limitations have been identified that recite a judicial exception, the claims are evaluated for additional elements. The additional elements are then analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 2 then Step 2B. The instant claims recite the following additional elements:
Claims 1 and 16 recite “A computer implemented method for … the method comprising: providing via a communication interface, composition parameters to a processing device; providing via the communication interface a data driven model and/or a rigorous model to the processing device; … with a processing device … providing via an output communication interface the determined performance properties of the oil-containing and/or the surfactant-containing product for cosmetics and/or the composition parameters and/or a formulation of the mixture, and or a formulation of the oil-containing and/or the surfactant- containing product for cosmetics.”
Claim 2 recites “wherein the composition parameters comprise a measure for the ratio of the different oils and/or surfactant and the further component in the mixture.”
Claim 3 recites “wherein the composition parameters comprise performance properties for each of the different oils.”
Claim 4 recites “wherein the composition parameters comprise an identifier for each of the oils and/or surfactant and the further component and the method further comprises a step of deriving performance properties for each of the oils and/or surfactant and the further component from the identifier.”
Claim 8 recites “the step of providing to the processing device via the communication interface target performance properties of a specific oil or a mixture of oils and/or surfactant and the further component or a mixture of surfactant and the further component for cosmetics.”
Claim 10 recites “… by the processing device … wherein providing via the output channel further comprises providing the result of the comparing step.”
Claim 11 recites “further comprising the step of providing the varied composition parameters as composition parameters.”
Claim 14 recites “wherein the target performance properties of a specific oil or a mixture of oils for cosmetics relate to a silicone-based oil or a mineral/paraffin oil.”
Claim 15 recites “wherein the target performance properties of a specific surfactant or a specific further component or a mixture of surfactant and further component relate to alkoxylate and sulfate based surfactants.”
Claim 16 recites “A system (12) for determining performance properties of an oil-containing and/or surfactant-containing product for cosmetics, the oil-containing product for cosmetics comprising different oils forming a mixture and/or the surfactant-containing product for cosmetics comprises at least one surfactant and further component forming the mixture, the system (12) comprising: a communication interface (18), and a processing device (16) configured to perform the method according to claim 1.”
Claim 17 recites “A computer program product that, when run on a processing device performs the method according to claim 1.”
Claim 18 recites “A method for determining performance properties of an oil-containing and/or a surfactant-containing product for cosmetics comprising the use of a system according to claim 16 for production of an oil containing product and/or of a surfactant-containing product for cosmetics.”
These above recited additional elements are analyzed below under both Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that reflect an improvement to a computer, technology, or technical field (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.5(a)), require a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)), implement the recited judicial exception with a particular machine that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)), nor provide some other meaningful limitation (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). Rather, the claims include limitations that equate to an equivalent of the words “apply it” and/or to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and to insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The paragraphs below discuss the additional elements recited above in the instant claims.
Claims 1, 8, 10 and 16-18 recite a computer implemented method, system, and CRM that use a communication interface, a processing device, and an output communication device. These are generic computer components and are thus equate to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, which the courts have established does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp. 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. These limitations also equate to invoking a computer as a tool to perform an existing process such as receiving, storing, and transmitting data (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Regarding the additional elements in claims 1, 8, 11 and 16-18 of providing composition parameters, models, and target performance parameters, these limitations equate to insignificant extra-solution activity of necessary data gathering. These limitations gather data necessary to perform the judicial exception in claims 1 and 16-18 of determining performance properties of the product.
Regarding the additional elements in claims 1, 10 and 16-18 of providing via an output communication interface and providing the result of the comparing step, these limitations equate to insignificant extra-solution activity of necessary data outputting. These limitations output the result of the judicial exception in claims 1 and 16-18 of determining performance properties of the product and in claim 10 of the comparing step.
Claims 2-4 and 14-15 further limit the gathered data of the composition parameters in claim 1 and the target performance properties in claim 8. As such, these limitations also equate to necessary data gathering.
As such, claims 1-18 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Step 2B:
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these claims recite additional elements that equate to instructions to apply the recited exception in a generic way and/or in a generic computing environment (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and to well-understood, routine and conventional (WURC) limitations (MPEP § 2106.05(d)). The paragraphs below discuss the additional elements recited above in the instant claims.
Claims 1, 8, 10 and 16-18 recite a computer implemented method, system, and CRM that use a communication interface, a processing device, and an output communication device. There are no limitations that these components require anything other than a generic computer and/or generic computing system. Therefore, these limitations equate to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computing environment, which the courts have established does not provide an inventive concept in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claims 1, 8, 10-11 and 16-18 of providing via a communication interface, an output communication interface, and an output channel, these limitations equate to receiving/transmitting data over a network, which the courts have established as WURC limitation of a generic computer in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Claims 2-4 and 14-15 also equate to transmitting/receiving data over a network because they limit the type of data but do not change the fact that data is being transmitted/received.
Claim 17, as discussed above in Non-statutory subject matter, is being interpreted as storing software in a non-transitory CRM. As such, claim 17 equates to storing information in memory, which the courts have established as a WURC function of a generic computer in Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
When these additional elements are considered individually and in combination, they do not provide an inventive concept because they equate to WURC functions/components of a generic computer. Therefore, these additional elements do not transform the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: No).
As such, claims 1-18 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pappas et al. (“Pappas”; WO 2020/264547 A1; effective filing date 06/25/2019).
The bold and italicized text below are the limitations of the instant claims, and the italicized text serves to map the prior art onto the instant claims.
Claim 1:
A computer implemented method for determining performance properties of an oil-containing and/or surfactant-containing product for cosmetics, the oil-containing product for cosmetics comprising different oils forming a mixture and/or the surfactant-containing product for cosmetics comprises at least one surfactant and further component forming the mixture, the method comprising:
Pappas determines properties of chemical compositions for cosmetics using a computer-system (abstract) (Figures 5-6) [68]. Figure 1A shows a composition with sodium lauryl sulfate and water (at least one surfactant and other component) [44].
providing via a communication interface, composition parameters to a processing device;
The identity of a chemical composition is received from one or more databases [76] (Figure 3A). Figure 3B shows a system containing different databases that receive, store and transmit data to one another including the chemical composition identity [85-88]. Alternatively, a user device 502 inputs chemical composition data into a chemical property modeling device 602 via a network 520 which includes wired or wireless communication networks [103-104] [109].
providing via the communication interface a data driven model and/or a rigorous model to the processing device;
Figure 6 shows the chemical property modeling device 602 contains a chemical properties engine 630, CPU 608 and memory 606, wherein the CPU and memory communicate to perform functions of the chemical properties engine 630 [37-38][127]. The engine 630 contains machine learning models trained on experimentally determined measurements of chemical properties of chemical composition (data-driven model) [10] [131-132] (Figures 6 and 9-10).
determining with a processing device determined performance properties of the oil-containing and/or the surfactant-containing product for cosmetics comprising the mixture, based on the data driven model and/or the rigorous model and the composition parameters; and
Input into the model includes a value of a property of a chemical composition, identify of the chemical composition, and values of chemoinformatic properties of ingredients of the chemical composition [8-9] (Figure 12). These are used to predict properties of the chemical composition 312 (Figure 3A) [75].
providing via an output communication interface the determined performance properties of the oil-containing and/or the surfactant-containing product for cosmetics and/or the composition parameters and/or a formulation of the mixture, and or a formulation of the oil-containing and/or the surfactant-containing product for cosmetics.
The predicted property values outputted by the properties engine 630 and are provided to the user device 502 via a communication network [103] [167] (Figure 5). The output includes predicted names, ingredients, cheminformatic values, and formulations of a chemical composition of a personal care product [75-76] [167] (Figure 3A).
Claims 2-3:
A chemical composition comprises one or more ingredients making up a product, wherein each ingredient is present at a percentage in the product [58] (Figure 2A). The ingredients of a product include surfactants, oils and other components (Figure 7-8) [146]. Each ingredient has an identity [58].
Claim 4:
Each ingredient in a chemical composition contains an identity, which may be a unique identifier, used to predict properties of the composition (claim 1 step d) (Figure 2B) [58-59].
Claims 5-6:
Each ingredient in a chemical composition contains associated physiochemical properties [79] and/or a chemoinformatic property associated with a qualitative sensory attribute (claim 1 steps a and c-d) (claim 16).
Claim 7:
Claim 7 further limits the oil-containing product, which is optional in claim 1. Thus, claim 7 is not required and is rejected for its dependency on rejected claim 1.
Claim 8:
A desired value of chemical composition property may be transferred from a user 502 to the chemical property modeling device 602 via a network 502 (Figure 5) [109] [113]. Each ingredient contains an associated feature or property [44] (Figure 1A). Alternatively, experimentally measured values of a property may be transferred from a properties database to the chemical property modeling device 602 [78] [124].
Claim 9:
Each ingredient has an identifier 222a or 242a and associated chemoinformatic properties (Figure 2A) [58-59] (providing an identifier). When an experimental measurement is transferred to the chemical property modeling device 602, the identifier and associated cheminformatic properties go with it (deriving the target performance from the identifier) [78] [124]. Alternatively, physiochemical properties of a chemical composition can be determined via thermodynamic modeling based on ingredients [62] [80]. Because these values, identifiers, and properties are stored in a database and used for later reference [86], these steps occur before the user inputs a desired value of a property of a chemical composition [113] or before the database transfers data to the modeling device [78][124].
Claim 10:
The predicted and desired value of a property of a chemical composition is compared [101]. If the determined value is the same as the desired value, then composition is manufactured [101].
Claims 11-13:
One or more chemical compositions can be inputted into the model for a product which are inputted into the model (varying and providing the composition parameters) [6] [48] (Figure 3A). Features related to property can be adjusted until a determined value aligns with a desired value [195], and two different compositions having a same property may contain at least one different ingredient (changing at least one identifier) (claims 121-125).
Pappas mentions combining new ingredients or removing ingredients from a chemical composition can change a value of a property of the composition [68].
Claim 14:
Claim 14 further limits the target performance properties of an oil or a mixture of oils. Claim 8, to which claim 14 depends, makes optional target performance properties of a specific oil or a mixture of oils. Thus, claim 14 is not required and is rejected for its dependency on rejected claim 8.
Claim 15:
An ingredient in a chemical composition can be sodium lauryl sulfate [66].
Claims 16-18:
Pappas discloses a system configured to perform the method of instant claim 1 in Figures 5-6, which contains networks 520/620 and CPUs 508/608. Pappas teaches non-transitory computer-readable mediums [35]. The method and device are used to produce a product (abstract).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 and 16-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-8, 10 and 12-16 of copending Application No. 18/032,219 (hereinafter “App. ‘219”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated by the claims in App. ‘219. The following table shows claims in App. ‘219 that anticipate the claims of the instant application:
Instant Application claims
App. ‘219
1 and 16-18
1-2, 10, and 12-16
2
7-8
3
3
4-6
5-6
7
2
8
7-8
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Notable, but not relied upon, prior art includes: US 2018/0075369 A1, US 2020/0058376 A1, US 2013/0246284 A1, and US 2006/0031027 A1.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noah A. Auger whose telephone number is (703)756-4518. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached at (571) 272-9047. 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.
/N.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/KAITLYN L MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights