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 of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 5/19/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 18-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/19/2026.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and under examination herein.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn, as discussed above.
Claims 1-17 are under examination herein.
Claims 1-17 are rejected.
Claim(s) 9 is objected to.
Priority
It is noted that the instant application does not claim the benefit of priority to any earlier filed applications. The effective filing date of claims 1-20 is 11/17/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/29/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. A signed copy of a list of references cited from each IDS is included in this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 11/17/2022 are accepted.
Specification
The specification filed on 11/17/2022 are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “plurality of sweetners” and “plurailty of data points” is mispelled. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 16 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein the model is trained by” which lacks clarity because it is unclear if this is merely a product-by-process type limitation describing how the model was previously trained or if training the model is included within the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 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.
In accordance with MPEP 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter (Step 1: YES) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1).
Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method of generating a model configured to provide data for determining synergy between a plurality of compounds in a mixture for applying to a human taste receptor, the method comprising: generating, by the processor, a model of response levels of the human taste receptor based on the first data set and the second data set by: determining, by the processor, a mapping between each data point from the plurality of data points and the response level of the human taste receptor determined for each data point from the plurality of data points; determining, by the processor, a first function of the concentration level of each compound in the mixture, the function having one or more unknown coefficients; and determining, by the processor, a second function of the concentration level of each compound in the mixture, the second function having the same form as the first function, by determining the one or more unknown coefficients by fitting the first function to the mapping between each data point from the plurality of data points and the response level of the human taste receptor determined for each data point from the plurality of data points.
Claim 4 recites the method of claim 1, wherein the first function is a sigmoid function.
Claim 5 recites the method of claim 4, wherein the sigmoid function is based on a logistic function, a trigonometric function, or a Hill equation.
Claim 9 recites a computer-implemented method of preparing a synergistic sweetener composition using a sweet taste receptor response model, the method comprising: determining, by the processor and using the sweet taste receptor response model, synergy among the plurality of sweeteners based on the received plurality of data points, wherein the synergy is measured by an increase in a response level of a sweet taste receptor to the plurality of sweeteners.
Claim 10 recites the method of claim 9, wherein the increase in the response level of the sweet taste receptor is equal to or greater than 25%.
Claim 16 recites the method of claim 9, wherein the sweet taste receptor response model is trained by: determining, by the processor, a mapping between sample data points of sample sweeteners and corresponding response levels of the sweet taste receptor, each sample data point including a concentration level of a corresponding sample sweetener; determining, by the processor, a first function of the concentration levels of the sample sweeteners, the function having one or more unknown coefficients; and determining, by the processor, a second function of the concentration levels of the sample sweeteners, the second function having the same form as the first function, by determining the one or more unknown coefficients by fitting the first function to the mapping between the sample data points and the corresponding response levels of the sweet taste receptor.
The limitations for generating, by the processor, a model of response levels of the human taste receptor based on the first data set and the second data set by: determining a mapping between each data point from the plurality of data points and the response level of the human taste receptor determined for each data point from the plurality of data points, concentration level of each compound in the mixture, the function having one or more unknown coefficients, determining, by the processor and using the sweet taste receptor response model, synergy among the plurality of sweeteners based on the received plurality of data points, wherein the synergy is measured by an increase in a response level of a sweet taste receptor to the plurality of sweeteners can be practically performed in the human mind and therefore falls under the “mental processes” grouping of ideas. Of note, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (e.g. evaluation of concentration level and subsequent mapping). Although the instant claims require the use of a computer or processor, the underlying, patent-ineligible invention can still be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind. (See Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015), Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The limitations for generating, by the processor, a model of response levels of the human taste receptor based on the first data set and the second data set by: determining a mapping between each data point from the plurality of data points and the response level of the human taste receptor determined for each data point from the plurality of data points, concentration level of each compound in the mixture, the function having one or more unknown coefficients; determining a second function of the concentration level of each compound in the mixture, the second function having the same form as the first function, by determining the one or more unknown coefficients by fitting the first function to the mapping between each data point from the plurality of data points and the response level of the human taste receptor determined for each data point from the plurality of data points are verbal equivalents of a mathematical calculation and fall under the “mathematical concept” grouping of ideas.
The limitations of the increase in the response level of the sweet taste receptor is equal to or greater than 25%; the plurality of sweeteners comprise at least two sweeteners; the plurality of sweeteners comprise at least three sweeteners merely serve to further limit the abstract idea and does not render the claim patent eligible. As such, claims 1-16 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
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). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that reflects an improvement to technology or applies or uses the recited judicial exception in some other meaningful way. Rather, the instant claims recite additional elements that amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. Specifically, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1 recites a method comprising: receiving, by a processor, a first data set comprising a plurality of data points, each data point comprising a concentration level of each compound in a mixture of a plurality of compounds.
Claim 2 recites the method of claim 1, the method further comprising: displaying data associated with the model to a user on a user device.
Claim 3 recites the method of claim 1, wherein the human taste receptor is a sweet taste receptor T1R2/T1R3 and wherein each compound in the mixture is a sweet-tasting compound.
Claim 6 recites the method of claim 1, wherein each compound in the mixture is selected from the group consisting of sugars, mogrosides, sweet amino acids, polyols, artificial sweeteners, natural sweeteners, and sweet tasting proteins.
Claim 7 recites the mixture comprises a first sweet-tasting compound, a second sweet-tasting compound, and a third sweet-tasting compound.
Claim 8 recites the method of claim 7, wherein each of the first sweet-tasting compound, the second sweet-tasting compound, and the third sweet-tasting compound is selected from aspartame, sucrose, sucralose, rebaudioside A, rebaudioside D, rebaudioside M, thaumatin, neohespheridin, and S819 [1-((1H-pyrrol-2-yl)methyl)-3-(4-isopropoxyphenyl)thiourea].
Claim 9 recites a method comprising: receiving, by a processor, a plurality of data points associated with a plurality of sweeteners, each data point indicating a concentration level of a corresponding sweetener among the plurality of sweeteners; and prompting, by the processor and via a user interface, a user to prepare a synergistic sweetener composition including the plurality of sweeteners in the respective concentration levels indicated in the plurality of data points, such that the synergistic sweetener composition produces the synergy determined using the sweet taste receptor response model.
Claim 11 recites the method of claim 9, wherein the plurality of sweeteners comprise at least two sweeteners.
Claim 12 recites the method of claim 9, wherein the plurality of sweeteners comprise at least three sweeteners.
Claim 13 recites the method of claim 9, further comprising: displaying, by the processor and via the user interface, the response level of the sweet taste receptor.
Claim 14 recites the method of claim 13, wherein the response level of the sweet taste receptor is displayed as luminosity.
Claim 15 recites the method of claim 14, wherein the response level of the sweet taste receptor is displayed in a graph.
The limitations of receiving, by a processor, a first data set comprising a plurality of data points, each data point comprising a concentration level of each compound in a mixture of a plurality of compounds; generating, by the processor, a model of response levels of the human taste receptor based on the first data set and the second data set by: generating, by the processor, a model of response levels of the human taste receptor based on the first data set and the second data set; displaying data associated with the model to a user on a user device; receiving, by a processor, a plurality of data points associated with a plurality of sweeteners, each data point indicating a concentration level of a corresponding sweetener among the plurality of sweeteners; and prompting, by the processor and via a user interface, a user to prepare a synergistic sweetener composition including the plurality of sweeteners in the respective concentration levels indicated in the plurality of data points, such that the synergistic sweetener composition produces the synergy determined using the sweet taste receptor response model, displaying, by the processor and via the user interface, the response level of the sweet taste receptor are considered data gathering, processing, analysis, and/or display steps. Of note, the courts have ruled in Electric Power Group, LLC V. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) that the collection, analysis, and display of data are considered insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, there are no limitations that indicate that the claimed computer, processor, input device or computer-readable medium require anything other than generic computing systems. As such, these limitations equate to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer that the courts have stated does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
The limitations of the human taste receptor is a sweet taste receptor T1R2/T1R3 and wherein each compound in the mixture is a sweet-tasting compound; the first function is a sigmoid function based on a logistic function, a trigonometric function, or a Hill equation; each compound in the mixture is selected from the group consisting of sugars, mogrosides, sweet amino acids, polyols, artificial sweeteners, natural sweeteners, and sweet tasting proteins; the mixture comprises a first sweet-tasting compound, a second sweet-tasting compound, and a third sweet-tasting compound; each of the first sweet-tasting compound, the second sweet-tasting compound, and the third sweet-tasting compound is selected from aspartame, sucrose, sucralose, rebaudioside A, rebaudioside D, rebaudioside M, thaumatin, neohespheridin, and S819 [1-((1H-pyrrol-2-yl)methyl)-3-(4-isopropoxyphenyl)thiourea]; the plurality of sweeteners comprise at least two sweeteners; the plurality of sweeteners comprise at least three sweeteners; the response level of the sweet taste receptor is displayed as luminosity and the response level of the sweet taste receptor is displayed in a graph merely serves to further limit the data displaying step (i.e. data type) and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As such, claims 1-16 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
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). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements that amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a generic field-of-use and/or technological environment. The instant claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1 recites a method comprising: receiving, by a processor, a first data set comprising a plurality of data points, each data point comprising a concentration level of each compound in a mixture of a plurality of compounds.
Claim 2 recites the method of claim 1, the method further comprising: displaying data associated with the model to a user on a user device.
Claim 3 recites the method of claim 1, wherein the human taste receptor is a sweet taste receptor T1R2/T1R3 and wherein each compound in the mixture is a sweet-tasting compound.
Claim 6 recites the method of claim 1, wherein each compound in the mixture is selected from the group consisting of sugars, mogrosides, sweet amino acids, polyols, artificial sweeteners, natural sweeteners, and sweet tasting proteins.
Claim 7 recites the mixture comprises a first sweet-tasting compound, a second sweet-tasting compound, and a third sweet-tasting compound.
Claim 8 recites the method of claim 7, wherein each of the first sweet-tasting compound, the second sweet-tasting compound, and the third sweet-tasting compound is selected from aspartame, sucrose, sucralose, rebaudioside A, rebaudioside D, rebaudioside M, thaumatin, neohespheridin, and S819 [1-((1H-pyrrol-2-yl)methyl)-3-(4-isopropoxyphenyl)thiourea].
Claim 9 recites a method comprising: receiving, by a processor, a plurality of data points associated with a plurality of sweeteners, each data point indicating a concentration level of a corresponding sweetener among the plurality of sweeteners; and prompting, by the processor and via a user interface, a user to prepare a synergistic sweetener composition including the plurality of sweeteners in the respective concentration levels indicated in the plurality of data points, such that the synergistic sweetener composition produces the synergy determined using the sweet taste receptor response model.
Claim 11 recites the method of claim 9, wherein the plurality of sweeteners comprise at least two sweeteners.
Claim 12 recites the method of claim 9, wherein the plurality of sweeteners comprise at least three sweeteners.
Claim 13 recites the method of claim 9, further comprising: displaying, by the processor and via the user interface, the response level of the sweet taste receptor.
Claim 14 recites the method of claim 13, wherein the response level of the sweet taste receptor is displayed as luminosity.
Claim 15 recites the method of claim 14, wherein the response level of the sweet taste receptor is displayed in a graph.
As aforementioned, there are no limitations that indicate that the claimed computer, processor, input device or computer-readable medium require anything other than generic computing systems. As such, these limitations equate to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer that the courts have stated does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. Furthermore, the limitations receiving, by a processor, a first data set comprising a plurality of data points, each data point comprising a concentration level of each compound in a mixture of a plurality of compounds; and receiving, by a processor, a plurality of data points associated with a plurality of sweeteners, each data point indicating a concentration level of a corresponding sweetener among the plurality of sweeteners; equate to data acquisition steps which are well-known, routine, and conventional activities. The limitations for obtaining data or an input device for accessing data are conventional activities. Specifically, the courts have identified steps of receiving data over a network or storing and retrieving information in memory as conventional computer functions in Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC V. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., V. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. V. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. V. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In addition, the limitations for generating, by the processor, a model of response levels of the human taste receptor based on the first data set and the second data set by: generating, by the processor, a model of response levels of the human taste receptor based on the first data set and the second data set graph is well-understood, conventional, and routine in the art as evidenced by DuBois (see “Abstract” where models between chemical structure and taste have been developed from early chemists; page 1-2).
The limitations of displaying data associated with the model to a user on a user device and prompting, by the processor and via a user interface, a user to prepare a synergistic sweetener composition including the plurality of sweeteners in the respective concentration levels indicated in the plurality of data points, such that the synergistic sweetener composition produces the synergy determined using the sweet taste receptor response model, displaying, by the processor and via the user interface, the response level of the sweet taste receptor, the response level of the sweet taste receptor is displayed as luminosity; and the response level of the sweet taste receptor is displayed in a graph is well-understood, conventional, and routine in the art as evidenced by Mignani et al. (discussion of common practice in the art explicitly recites consumer sweetener composition as desirable and subsequent analysis on spectra graph; see page 240-241).
There are no additional elements that comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: No). As such, claims 1-16 are not patent eligible. Of note, as claim 17 recites an additional element with no judicial exception, the claim is patent eligible.
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.
The present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However,
Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is,
each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. (See MPEP 2141.02(VI))
Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a
rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eddy et al. (US 2016165935) in view of Wolf (Application of Agonist-Receptor Modeling to the Sweetness Synergy between High Fructose Corn Syrup and Sucralose, and between High-Potency Sweeteners. Journal of Food Science, 75: S95-S102) as filed in the IDS on 5/29/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Eddy teaches:
A computer-implemented method (explicit computer implementation taught in paragraphs [0033]-[0036]) of generating a model relating ingredient concentrations to sensory response or intensity, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, a first data set comprising a plurality of data points (plot 200 with a plurality of data points 215 in paragraph [0078]), each data point comprising a concentration level of each compound in a mixture of a plurality of compounds (first concentration mapped in paragraph [0081]; concentration parameters also notably includes sugar as recited in paragraph [0059]-[0061]);
receiving, by the processor, a second data set comprising a response level determined for each data point from the plurality of data points (plurality of data points 215 are received from perceived sweetness intensity in paragraph [0078]); and
generating, by the processor, a model of response levels based on the first data set and the second data set (paragraph [0079] where function Is fitted to data points (e.g. a model)) by:
determining, by the processor, a mapping between each data point from the plurality of data points and the response level determined for each data point from the plurality of data points (paragraph [0062] chemical stimulus parameter 105 mapped to taste parameter 115; plot 200 with a plurality of data points 215 in paragraph [0078] and fitted to data points in paragraph [0079]);
determining, by the processor, a first function of the concentration level of each compound in the mixture, the function having one or more unknown coefficients (see [0065]-[0069] for explicit equations with coefficients and constants);
and determining, by the processor, a second function of the concentration level of each compound in the mixture, the second function having the same form as the first function, by determining the one or more unknown coefficients by fitting the first function to the mapping between each data point from the plurality of data points and the response level determined for each data point from the plurality of data points (in paragraph [0079], see Gompertz function 225 and Richards function 230 are fitted to the data points 215).
Eddy does not explicitly teach a method to determining synergy between a plurality of compounds in a mixture for applying to a human taste receptor, but rather creates a composition based on a perceived response (e.g. sweet taste perception). Wolf teaches the use of a model to predict the sweetness synergy between different sweetness compounds based on the chemical equilibria between agonists such as sweetness receptors (e.g. T1R2/T1R3 receptors) and transducers (page S95; “Introduction”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Wolf’s receptor-based sweetness synergy with Eddy’s ingredient composition pipeline in order to provide additional evidence for multiple binding sites on the sweetness receptor for consumer studies (page S101-S102). The incorporation could be made with a reasonable expectation of success as both inventions are in the same field of endeavor and directed towards solving the same problem.
Regarding claim 2, Eddy as modified teaches:
The method of claim 1, the method further comprising: displaying data associated with the model to a user on a user device (the determined concentrations are provided on the data interface in paragraph [0036]; details of implementation found in paragraphs [0125]-[0134]).
Regarding claim 3, Wolf teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the human taste receptor is a sweet taste receptor T1R2/T1R3 and wherein each compound in the mixture is a sweet-tasting compound (beverage formulations sweetened with high fructose corn syrup, sucralose, and other high-potency sweeteners recited in “Abstract”; sweetness receptors being T1R2/T1R3 explicitly recited in “Introduction”; page S95).
Of note, Eddy also teaches the sweet tasting composition. (Eddy: sugar or sweetener recited in [0031]; [0064]-[0065] details the sweetness/sucrose modeling).
Regarding claim 4, Eddy as modified teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first function is a sigmoid function (explicitly taught in [0014]; [0062]-[0063]; [0079]) .
Regarding claim 5, Eddy as modified teaches:
The method of claim 4, wherein the sigmoid function is based on a logistic function (see [0014] and [0063]), a trigonometric function, or a Hill equation.
Regarding claim 6, Eddy as modified teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein each compound in the mixture is selected from the group consisting of sugars, artificial sweeteners, and natural sweeteners (sugar and sweeteners explicitly described in paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 7, Eddy as modified teaches that once a target flavor intensity is determined, several possible combinations of concentrations of ingredients can be used to achieve the target flavor intensity (multi-component formulations taught in [0107]). Although Eddy as modified does not explicitly teach that the mixture comprises a first sweet-tasting compound, a second sweet-tasting compound, and a third sweet-tasting compound, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to use the sweet ingredients to achieve the sweet target flavor intensity desired (combination of ingredients to achieve a target flavor intensity seen in [0107]). In particular, the courts have held In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. This repeated combination would be achieved with reasonable expectation of success as the prior art already discloses that a multi-combination formulation to meet a flavor metric exists within the recited framework.
In addition, Wolf teaches that the mixture comprises a first sweet-tasting compound, a second sweet-tasting compound, and a third sweet-tasting compound (beverage formulations sweetened with high fructose corn syrup, sucralose, and other high-potency sweeteners recited in “Abstract”; page S95).
Regarding claim 9, Eddy as modified teaches:
A computer-implemented method (explicit computer implementation taught in paragraphs [0033]-[0036]) of preparing a synergistic sweetener composition (formulation taught in [0051];[0085]-[0109]) using a response model, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, a plurality of data points associated with a plurality of sweeteners (see [0064]-[0065] for sweetness and plurality of data points explicitly seen in [0078]), each data point indicating a concentration level of a corresponding sweetener among the plurality of sweeteners (first concentration mapped in paragraph [0081]; concentration parameters also notably includes sugar as recited in paragraph [0059]-[0061]); and
determining, by the processor and using the response model, synergy among the plurality of sweeteners based on the received plurality of data points, wherein the synergy is measured by an increase in a response level to the plurality of sweeteners (plurality of data points 215 are received from perceived sweetness intensity in paragraph [0078] which is used in the composition in [0107]).
prompting, by the processor and via a user interface, a user to prepare a synergistic sweetener composition (see [0095]-[0096]) including the plurality of sweeteners in the respective concentration levels indicated in the plurality of data points, such that the synergistic sweetener composition produces the synergy.
Similarly to claim 1, Eddy does not explicitly teach a computer-implemented method of preparing a synergistic sweetener composition using a sweet taste receptor response model, but rather prepares the composition based on a perceived response (e.g. sweet taste perception). Wolf teaches the use of a model to predict the sweetness synergy between different sweetness compounds based on the chemical equilibria between agonists such as sweetness receptors (e.g. T1R2/T1R3 receptors) and transducers (page S95; “Introduction”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Wolf’s receptor-based sweetness synergy with Eddy’s ingredient composition pipeline in order to provide additional evidence for multiple binding sites on the sweetness receptor for consumer studies (page S101-S102). The incorporation could be made with a reasonable expectation of success as both inventions are in the same field of endeavor and directed towards solving the same problem.
As aforementioned, although Eddy does not explicitly recite a “human taste receptor” and subsequent “sweet taste receptor models”, taste perception necessarily involves human taste receptors. It is elementary that the mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, inherently possessed by things in the prior art, does not cause a claim drawn to distinguish of the prior art. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on (see MPEP § 2112).
Regarding claim 10, Eddy as modified teaches:
The method of claim 9, wherein the increase in the response level of the sweet taste receptor is equal to or greater than 25% (Fig. 2 discloses a graph that indicates different thresholds of sweetness perception with their respective concentration).
Regarding claim 11, Eddy as modified teaches:
The method of claim 9, wherein the plurality of sweeteners comprise at least two sweeteners (multi-component formulations taught in [0107]; also see rejection on claim 7).
Regarding claim 12, Eddy as modified teaches:
The method of claim 9, wherein the plurality of sweeteners comprise at least three sweeteners (multi-component formulations taught in [0107]; also see rejection on claim 7).
Regarding claim 13, Eddy as modified teaches:
The method of claim 9, further comprising: displaying, by the processor and via the user interface, the response level of the sweet taste receptor (data interface recited in [0034]-[0036]; graphical displays in Figs. 2, 3, and 5).
Regarding claim 14, Eddy as modified teaches
The method of claim 13, wherein the response level of the sweet taste receptor is displayed as luminosity (data interface recited in [0034]-[0036]; see Fig. 3 and 5 for color-mapped response level).
Regarding claim 15, Eddy as modified teaches:
The method of claim 14, wherein the response level of the sweet taste receptor is displayed in a graph (graphical displays in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Eddy as modified teaches:
The method of claim 9, the sweet taste receptor response model is trained by:
determining, by the processor, a mapping between sample data points of sample sweeteners and corresponding response levels of the sweet taste receptor, each sample data point including a concentration level of a corresponding sample sweetener (see [0078]-[0079]; [0088]);
determining, by the processor, a first function of the concentration levels of the sample sweeteners (first concentration mapped in paragraph [0081]; concentration parameters also notably includes sugar as recited in paragraph [0059]-[0061]), the function having one or more unknown coefficients (see [0065]-[0069] for explicit equations with coefficients and constants); and
determining, by the processor, a second function of the concentration levels of the sample sweeteners, the second function having the same form as the first function, by determining the one or more unknown coefficients by fitting the first function to the mapping between the sample data points and the corresponding response levels of the sweet taste receptor (in paragraph [0079], see Gompertz function 225 and Richards function 230 are fitted to the data points 215).
Regarding claim 17, Eddy as modified:
A method of preparing a synergistic sweetener composition based on a perceived taste response model (plurality of data points 215 are received from perceived sweetness intensity in paragraph [0078] which is used in the composition in [0107]), the method comprising:
preparing a synergistic sweetener composition with two or more sweeteners in respective concentration levels recommended by perceived taste response model (see overview of invention on [0011]-[0013]);
wherein the model is generated based on a plurality of data points associated with sweetener mixtures, each data point comprising a concentration level of each sweetener in each sweetener mixture and sweet taste receptor data comprising each perceived taste response for each data point from the plurality of data points (plurality of data points 215 are received from perceived sweetness intensity in paragraph [0078] which is used in the composition in [0107]); and
wherein the model is analyzed to determine synergy among sweeteners in sweetener mixtures and respective concentration levels of the sweeteners at which synergy is demonstrated in order to provide a recommendation for a synergistic composition (recommendations and reformulating compositions based on model outputs recited in [0107]-[0109]).
Similarly to claim 1 and 9, Eddy does not explicitly teach a method of preparing a synergistic sweetener composition using a sweet taste receptor response model, but rather prepares the composition based on a perceived response (e.g. sweet taste perception). Wolf teaches the use of a model to predict the sweetness synergy between different sweetness compounds based on the chemical equilibria between agonists such as sweetness receptors (e.g. T1R2/T1R3 receptors) and transducers (page S95; “Introduction”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Wolf’s receptor-based sweetness synergy with Eddy’s ingredient composition pipeline in order to provide additional evidence for multiple binding sites on the sweetness receptor for consumer studies (page S101-S102). The incorporation could be made with a reasonable expectation of success as both inventions are in the same field of endeavor and directed towards solving the same problem.
As aforementioned, although Eddy does not explicitly recite a “human taste receptor” and subsequent “sweet taste receptor models”, taste perception necessarily involves human taste receptors. It is elementary that the mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, inherently possessed by things in the prior art, does not cause a claim drawn to distinguish of the prior art. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on (see MPEP § 2112).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eddy et al. (US 2016165935) and Wolf et al. (Application of Agonist-Receptor Modeling to the Sweetness Synergy between High Fructose Corn Syrup and Sucralose, and between High-Potency Sweeteners. Journal of Food Science, 75: S95-S102) as filed in the IDS on 5/29/2024, as applied to claims 1 and 7, in view of Tachdijian et al. (WO 2006084184) further in view of Schiffman et al. (Bitterness of sweeteners as a function of concentration. Brain Res Bull. 1995;36(5):505-13).
Regarding claim 8, Eddy as modified teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein each of the first sweet-tasting compound, the second sweet-tasting compound, and the third sweet-tasting compound is selected from sucrose. Eddy as modified does not teach wherein each of the first sweet-tasting compound, the second sweet-tasting compound, and the third sweet-tasting compound is selected from aspartame, sucralose aspartame, rebaudioside A, rebaudioside D, rebaudioside M, thaumatin, neohespheridin, and and S819 [1-((1H-pyrrol-2-yl)methyl)-3-(4-isopropoxyphenyl)thiourea]. Tachdijian disclose compounds used aspartame (listed as an artificial sweetener in a disclosed list on page 1; lines 28-30), sucralose aspartame (listed as an artificial sweetener in a disclosed list on page 1; lines 28-30), and S819 [1-((1H-pyrrol-2-yl)methyl)-3-(4-isopropoxyphenyl)thiourea] (see Example 19; see B10 in Table B where compounds are listed as an activator of a hTIR2/hTIR3 sweet receptor) a sweetening flavor modifier for particular compositions. The Examiner notes according to MPEP 2117, treatment of claims reciting alternatives is not governed by the particular format used (e.g., alternatives may be set forth as “a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C” or “wherein the material is A, B, or C”). See, e.g., the Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications (“Supplementary Guidelines”), 76 Fed. Reg. 7162 (February 9, 2011).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that these molecules are all alternatives of a sweet-tasting compound and integrate them into Eddy as modified’s pipeline in order to address the continuous need for new and improved taste enhancing compounds as evidenced by Tachdijian and multiple recited patent publications on the synergistic enhancers of natural and artificial sweeteners in his disclosure (“Background of the Invention”; page 1-3). The incorporation could be made with a reasonable expectation of success as the inventions are all in the same field of endeavor as known sweetener alternatives used in synergistic composition and mixtures as evidenced by Schiffman (“Abstract”; page 505; also see Tao: “Abstract”; page 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gravina et al. (WO2014183044 A1) discloses sweet taste modulator identification. Tao (Consumer-Based Sensory Characterization of Steviol Glycosides (Rebaudioside A, D, and M). Foods. 2020 Jul 31;9(8):1026) discloses consumer-based sensory characterization of steviol glycosides.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Olivia M. Wise can be reached at (571) 272-2249. 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.
/P.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1685
/OLIVIA M. WISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights