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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is a non-final First Office Action.
This action is in response to communications filed on 10/27/2022.
Claims 1-17 are pending and have been considered.
Claims 1- 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception, an abstract idea (mental process), without significantly more.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golovsky et al , SU 1013822 A (“GOL”) in view of Mackay et al Correlation of Chemical Evaporation Rate with Vapor Pressure, AMC dx.doi.org/10.1021/es5029074 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 10259−10263 (“MAC“) in further view of Gafsou US 20160091470 A1 (“GAF”)
Claim 2, 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golovsky et al , SU 1013822 A (“GOL”) in view of Mackay et al Correlation of Chemical Evaporation Rate with Vapor Pressure, AMC dx.doi.org/10.1021/es5029074 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 10259−10263 (“MAC“) in further view of Gafsou US 20160091470 A1 (“GAF”) in further view of Mainland et al, From molecule to mind: an integrative perspective on odor intensity, Trends in Neurosciences August 2014, Vol. 37, No. 8 (“MAI”)
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golovsky et al , SU 1013822 A (“GOL”) in view of Mackay et al Correlation of Chemical Evaporation Rate with Vapor Pressure, AMC dx.doi.org/10.1021/es5029074 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 10259−10263 (“MAC“) in further view of Gafsou US 20160091470 A1 (“GAF”) in further view of Orlova et al EVAPORATION RATE OF A LIQUID LAYER STREAMLINED BY GAS FLOW IN MINICHANNEL (”ORL”)
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golovsky et al , SU 1013822 A (“GOL”) in view of Mackay et al Correlation of Chemical Evaporation Rate with Vapor Pressure, AMC dx.doi.org/10.1021/es5029074 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 10259−10263 (“MAC“) in further view of Gafsou US 20160091470 A1 (“GAF”) in further view of Mainland et al, From molecule to mind: an integrative perspective on odor intensity, Trends in Neurosciences August 2014, Vol. 37, No. 8 (“MAI”) in further view of Chudziak, ON WEIGHTED QUASI–ARITHMETIC MEANS WHICH ARE CONVEX, Mathematical Inequality Applications, Vol 22, N. 4, 2019 (“CHU”).
Claims 8-10 are indicates as containing allowable subject matter.
Priority
The application claims priority to EP20172487.9 Filing Date04/30/2020. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/27/2022, 06/04/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claims 12, 13 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means”;
(B) the term “means” is modified by functional language; and
(C) the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claims 1-11, 14-17, all reciting the words “step of” are NOT interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “step”
(B) the “step” or the generic placeholder is NOT modified by functional language
(C) the term “step” IS modified by sufficient acts for performing the claimed function.
The claim elements following the term “steps of” in claims 1-11, 14—17 are considered to be acts.
An additional reason in support of this interpretation is the MPEP guidance that “ On the other hand, the term ‘step’ alone and the phrase ‘steps of’ tend to show that Section 112, Para. 6 does not govern that limitation." MPEP2181 A
Thus, claims 1-11, 14-17 are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under BRI but rather seeks to invoke U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim limitation(s) to force them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For claims 12, 13 the interpretation to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification. is as follows. Both interpretation for ‘means of’ (under 112(f) and ‘step of’ (under BRI) is provided for the record
a means (305) of controlled deposition of a chemical compound in an inert container (306),
SPEC: “The means 305 of controlled deposition corresponds to variants disclosed
relative to the step 105 of controlled deposition shown in figure 2. Such a means 305 is, for example, a manual or automated pipette.” (Fig 2 is a flowchart showing the step).
The step 105 refers to the transfer in/onto a container of a predetermined quantity of chemical compound spread over a predetermined surface…the transfer can be performed using any known means to transfer liquids…controlled deposition is preferably performed at a controlled temperature throughout the evaporation quantity measurement. Evaporation rates are preferably measured in pseudo-equilibrium conditions: controlled temperature, air flow and rate, to basically mimic a closed thermodynamic system. Such an approach confirms that the evaporation rates can easily be related to a thermodynamic quantity such as vapor pressure.
In more advanced embodiments a plurality of 105 steps of controlled deposition at different temperatures
a means (310) of airflow generation, the airflow being directed in the direction of the deposited chemical compound,
SPEC: “The means 310 of airflow generation corresponds to variants disclosed relative to the step 110 of airflow generation shown in figure 2. Such a means 310 is, for
example, a pump. “ (Fig 2 is a flowchart showing the step). Under 112(f) only pump.
The step 110 of airflow generation is performed, for example, using a pump or other airflow generation means. Preferably, the airflow is representative of the average
airflow onto the skin of a person. Step 110 is analyzed under BRI, so all generation means are included.
a means (315) of measurement of a quantity of evaporated chemical compound at different measurement times,
SPEC: “The means 315 of measurement corresponds to variants disclosed relative to
the step 115 of measurement shown in figure 2. Such a means 315 is, for example, a compound presence and quantity sensor. (Fig 2 is a flowchart showing the step).
The step 115 of measurement is performed using a microbalance chemical compound sensor or rising the remaining materials with a solvent or trapping in a cartridge the evaporated materials followed by quantification by gaseous phase chromatography.
a means (320) of evaporation rate calculation depending on the measured evaporated chemical compound quantities measured,
SPEC: “The means 320 of evaporation rate calculation corresponds to variants
disclosed relative to the step 120 of evaporation rate calculation shown in figure 2.
Such a means 320 is, for example, a computer or server.” (Fig 2 is a flowchart showing the step). Furthermore the algorithm step is described by step 120 a calculation as below.
The step 120 of evaporation rate calculation is a function of temperature, surface of container, quantity of compound deposited and air flow volume;
.
a means (325) of volatility calculation depending on the evaporation rate calculated and
SPEC: “The means 325 of volatility calculation corresponds to variants disclosed relative
to the step 125 of volatility calculation shown in figure 2. Such a means 325 is, for example, a computer or server”. (Fig 2 is a flowchart showing the step). Furthermore the algorithm step is described by step 125 a calculation as below.
The step 125 of volatility calculation preferably uses a linear regression model linking evaporation rate to concentration, by measuring the evaporation rate and relative gas phase concentrations for several initial ingredient concentration in the liquid or solid phase at preset experimental conditions corresponding to equilibrium conditions. Thus volatility is calculated from evaporation rates (at pseudo-equilibrium conditions), using a linear model .
a means (330) of storing, in a database, the calculated evaporation rate and the volatility calculated.
SPEC: “The means 330 of storing corresponds to variants disclosed relative to the step
330 of storing shown in figure 2. Such a means 330 is, for example, a database
accessible on an information network. “
means (405) of selecting at least one chemical compound identifier in a computerized interface,
SPEC: “The means 405 of selecting corresponds to variants disclosed relative to the
step 205 of selecting shown in figure 3. Such a means 405 is, for example, a keyboard
and/or a mouse allowing for the control of a computerized interface. “
a means (410) of inputting, for each selected chemical compound, a quantity of said chemical compound,
SPEC: “The means 410 of inputting corresponds to variants disclosed relative to the
step 210 of inputting shown in figure 3. Such a means 410 is, for example, a keyboard
and/or a mouse allowing for the control of a computerized interface. “
a means (415) of modeling a deposition of the quantity of each selected chemical compound on a virtual surface,
SPEC: “The means 415 of modeling corresponds to variants disclosed relative to the step 215 of modeling shown in figure 3. Such a means 410 is, for example, a computer
or server. “
The step 215 of modeling: setting, manually or automatically, parameters for intended use of composition: airflow, or more complex such as distance of dispersion of the composition, hence surface of deposition
a means (420) of simulating, by a computing system, for at least one (modeled) deposited chemical compound, the stripped quantity of said chemical compound in an airflow for at least two different times as a function of: the quantity of each said chemical compound, a first value representative of a virtual surface size of the deposited chemical compound, a second value representative of a virtual airflow directed at the deposited chemical compound configured to virtually strip the chemical compound from the surface, a third value representative of an activity coefficient of each said chemical compound and an evaporation rate or volatility associated to said chemical compound stored in a database constructed according to the database construction method of claim 1
SPEC: “The means 420 of modeling corresponds to variants disclosed relative to the step 220 of modeling shown in figure 3. Such a means 420 is, for example, a computer or server. “
Step 220 of simulating uses a model of stripping corresponding to the surface of the spread parfume, air convection, measured evaporation equilibrum at small time steps, gas phase concentration by air convection,
PNG
media_image1.png
321
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
88
693
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Or, in a simplified model
PNG
media_image3.png
300
688
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a means (425) of displaying, for each chemical compound, of an indicator representative of the computed evaporated mass of said compound over time.
SPEC: “The means 425 of displaying corresponds to variants disclosed relative to the step 225 of displaying shown in figure 3. Such a means 425 is, for example, a computer screen. “
STEP 225: displaying is performed, for example, by a screen configured to display a user interface in which an operator may see the results of the simulation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim 7, 14-17 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.
Claim 7 uses the phrase “dummy dose-response curve” which is not explained in the specification, nor it is found in google search except in this patent application. Other than repeating the same words as the claim, the only other reference in the specification is to the phrase dummy dose-odor descriptor intensity curve, which also is uniquely used by applicant and has no known definition. The specification defines “Such a mathematical formula can be a sigmoid curve for example in which parameters are set to match the perceived intensities…. Such a modeled curve is called a "dose-response curve". What is however the dummy one? The scope can not be reasonably determined by a POSITA. Examiner can not determine the meats and bounds.
Can the dummy curve it be any curve modeled by a mathematical formula? What is the shape/parameters of this curve? The specification refers to the a sigmoid curve as an example provided. Does it have portions of linearity?
PNG
media_image4.png
974
1130
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
265
714
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Solely for the purpose of advancing prosecution the claim will be interpreted as a curve mapping perceived intensity to composition, sigmoidal for example.
Claims 14-17 depend from claim 7 and are rejected under the same rationale due to the inherited deficiency.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As indicated in the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) the phrase dummy dose-response curve is not defined or explained in the written description. POSITA cannot practice invention since it is unclear what curve with what parameters to use.
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 directed to an ineligible judicial exception.
Claims are analyzed under the Alice/Mayo framework to determine whether the claims are directed to an ineligible judicial exception. The number in the parenthesis, next to a claim number, is the number of the parent claim. Recitation of judicial exceptions are highlighted in bold font. Paraphrased language, shown in italics, is used to simplify reference. Claims with similar limitations, although not verbatim identical, that share the same rationale under Alice/Mayo steps Step 1 (S1) and Steps 2 Prongs A1, A2 and B (S2A1, S2A2, S2B) are grouped. The analysis is performed on a representative claim of each group. An additional analysis is performed if any claims in the group includes additional limitations.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception (abstract idea, mental process) without significantly more.
(S1) Prima facie, claims 1-17 are each directed to a statutory category of invention: process (Claims 1-11, 14-17 directed to a method), machine (claims 12, 13 directed to an apparatus).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
(S2A1)
Claim 1 recites recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
a STEP (105) of controlled deposition of a chemical compound in an inert container,
a STEP (110) of airflow generation, the airflow being directed in the direction of the deposited chemical compound,
a STEP (115) of measurement of a quantity of evaporated chemical compound at different measurement times,
a STEP (120) of evaporation rate calculation depending on the measured evaporated chemical compound quantities measured (can be performed by a human with pen and paper)
a STEP (125) of volatility calculation depending on the evaporation rate calculated and (can be performed by a human with pen and paper)
a STEP (130) of storing, in a database, the calculated evaporation rate and the volatility calculated.
The limitations in bold recite a process that can be performed in the mind, or with pen and paper.
In broadest reasonable interpretation and in view of the specification the claim recites the following limitations calculate evaporation rate from chemical compound evaporated, and calculate volatility from evaporation rate which, when considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis (as per the MPEP 2106.04 II. B guidance), recites a process aimed at: “calculate volatility based on evaporation rate calculated by measured evaporated compounds ” .
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of limitations expressing evaluation and application of calculation and judgement. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The limitation also refers to mathematical calculations, which are Mathematical Concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection I) ), though no actual calculation is explicitly recited.
Accordingly, claim recites an abstract idea.
(S2A2)
The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the claims only amount to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional claim elements also recite: a controlled deposition in an inert container (for example with a pipette, as per the specification) , airflow generation (for example with a pump, as per the specification), measurement of an evaporated quantity at different moments of time (for example with a compound presence and quantity sensor, as per the specification) (A-C) and storing in a database (F) When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than Insignificant Extra Solution Activities, which the courts have identified did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application
The additional elements, taken individually or in combination, fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application when evaluated using the considerations in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) because these do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, nor do they effect an improvement to any technology or technical field. Therefore, the claim remains directed to a judicial exception.
(S2B) Claim 1 does not include additional elements, which individually or in combination amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As analyzed in step S2A2 the additional elements recite only Insignificant Extra (Pre-Solution and/or Post-Solution) Activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)). For situations substantially similar to those here, the data gathering steps recited at a high level of generality and the data transmission and storing recited at high level of generality were found by the courts to be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (WURC) (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)).
When considered as a whole, with additional elements in an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim only amount to instructions to Insignificant Extra Solution Activities. Additional elements elaborate on the identified abstract idea but do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing about the additional steps that is significant or meaningful to the underlying judicial exception because the identified abstract idea - calculate volatility based on evaporation rate calculated by measured evaporated compounds , could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. There is no inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, it is concluded that claim 1 is ineligible.
Claim 4 is analyzed similarly to claim 1. In Steps 215 it recites modeling a deposition of a quantity (step 215 according to the specification, see the exact definition/wording in the claim interpretation above - is: setting, manually or automatically, parameters for intended use of composition – choice of the parameters can be done mentally by a human); 220 recites simulation by a computing system, the stripped quantity of the chemical compound as a function of several variables (wherein the specification gives the exact formula to be used- thus a mental process that can be calculated by the human mind using pen and paper). The claim recites an abstract idea of “For selected parameters for variables, calculate a function of multiple variables” The only additional element is displaying an indicator of computer result, thus an insignificant post-solution activity of data outputting, which courts found to be WURC. There is no inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, it is concluded that claim 4 is ineligible.
Claim 12 invokes 112(f). The structure of the claims is similar to that of claim 1, while the interpretation covers the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The interpretation for each limitation is according to Claim Interpretation section above.
Thus for limitations 3 and 4 the algorithmic structure recites the calculation of evaporation rate as a function of temperature surface etc. and a volatility calculation using a linear regression model between evaporation and concentration. The abstract idea is therefore to “calculate a volatility rate based on a evaporation rater which is calculated from concentration using linear regression”
The additional elements are data gathering (using a pipette, a pump and and compound presence and quantity sensor) with the same results in Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B as the analysis in claim 1. Therefore, it is concluded that claim 12 is ineligible.
Claim 13 invokes 112(f). The structure of the claims is similar to that of claim 4, while the interpretation covers the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The interpretation for each limitation is according to Claim Interpretation section above.
Thus for limitations 215 the algorithmic structure recites the setting of parameters for intended use of composition: airflow, or more complex such as distance of dispersion of the composition, hence surface of deposition calculation of evaporation rate as a function of temperature surface etc. for limitation 220 provides the formula as presented in claim interpretation above. The abstract idea is therefore to “calculate a volatility rate based on a diffusion coefficient, layer thickness, evaporation surface, liquid mole fraction activity coefficient of the compound and volatility of the compound or the simplified formula as a product of a constant of evaporation, mass of compound, volatility of compound, divided by total mass of all compounds ” As a mathematical equation is recited this is not only a process that can be performed by the human mind with pen and paper but also a mathematical concept.
The additional elements is a display. with the same results in Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B as the analysis in claim 1. Therefore, it is concluded that claim 13 is ineligible.
Thus, independent claims are found ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The remaining dependent claim follow the same analysis steps as above, with similar types of abstract ideas – of evaluation/computing, and similar extra solution activities of data gathering, storing data in database and display. The additional recited limitations refine the abstract ideas in the parent claims, while additional elements do not provide significantly more. The following is the claim by claim analysis.
Claim 2 is merely further limiting the mental process with a computation limitation (computing at least one gas phase concentration) and a modeling of a mathematical formula; additional elements are of data acquisition and data recording/storing in a database, which are insignificant extra solution activities, found WURC by the courts. The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 3 is merely further limiting the mental process with a calculation of deposition of chemicals at different temperatures; the additional elements are of data acquisition and data recording/storing in a database, which are insignificant extra solution activities, found WURC by the courts. The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 5 is merely further limiting the abstract idea of claim 4 with an additional step of computing,; the additional elements is the display of the result of computation, an insignificant extra solution activities, found WURC by the courts. The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 6 is merely further limiting the abstract idea of claim 4, further limited by 5, with two additional steps of computing, and a step of modeling a mathematical formula; the additional elements are a data acquisition step, a data storing in a database step and is the display of the result of computation, an insignificant extra solution activities, found WURC by the courts. The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 7 is merely further limiting the abstract idea of claim 4, further limited by 5 and 6 with two additional steps of computing/matching a step of addition of a value and a third step of matching; the additional elements is the display of the result of computation, an insignificant extra solution activities, found WURC by the courts. The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 8 is merely further limiting the abstract idea of claim 4, further limited by 5 and 6 with and additional steps of computing; the additional elements is the display of the result of computation, an insignificant extra solution activities, found WURC by the courts. The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 9 is merely further limiting the abstract idea of claim 4, further limited by 5 and 6 with and additional steps of selection (a mental process) ; the additional elements is the display of the result of computation, an insignificant extra solution activities, found WURC by the courts. The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 10 is merely further limiting the abstract idea of claim 4, with two steps of selection and one step of computing; there are no additional elements. The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 11 is merely further limiting the abstract idea of claim 4, with the limitations of claim 1. The claim thus recites an abstract idea which combines the abstract ideas of claims 4 and 1 and for which the additional elements are insignificant extra solution activities. The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 14 is merely further limiting the abstract idea of claim 7, with an additional steps of computing; the additional elements is the display of the result of computation, an insignificant extra solution activities, found WURC by the courts. The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 15 is merely further limiting the abstract idea of claim 14, with an additional steps of selection; the additional elements is the display of the result of selection, an insignificant extra solution activities, found WURC by the courts. The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 16 is merely further limiting the abstract idea of claim 15, with an additional steps of computing; there is no new additional element. The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 17 is merely further limiting the abstract idea of claim 16, with additional limitations of claim 1. The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims that share substantially similar limitations (even though not verbatim) are grouped and analyzed together; the analysis is done on the claim with most comprehensive limitations. The parenthesis following a claim number indicates the parent claim.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golovsky et al , SU 1013822 A (“GOL”) in view of Mackay et al Correlation of Chemical Evaporation Rate with Vapor Pressure, AMC dx.doi.org/10.1021/es5029074 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 10259−10263 (“MAC“) in further view of Gafsou US 20160091470 A1 (“GAF”)
Regarding Claim 1, GOL discloses
a step of controlled deposition of a chemical compound in an inert container airflow generation,{ [p. 5 middle] capillary 4, designed to replenish evaporated liquid; figure; [p4 bottom] the test substance is placed in a closed volume, }
a step of the airflow being directed in the direction of the deposited chemical compound, { p. 5 middle] compressor 7, creating a flow of gaseous medium through a closed volume 2;figure }
a step of measurement of a quantity of evaporated chemical compound at different measurement times, a step of evaporation rate calculation depending on the measured evaporated chemical compound quantities measured, { [p4 botom] determining the evaporation rate by measuring the mass loss of the test substance with a purge above the evaporation surface of the gas medium, the test substance is placed in a closed volume, the mass loss is measured continuously }
GOL does not teach, however MAC teaches
A step of volatility calculation depending on the evaporation rate calculated { [10260 bottom] The evaporation rate E can then be expressed one either a molar or mass basis as….
PNG
media_image6.png
374
390
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The art shows evaporation rate proportional with vapor pressure. As known to POSITA and per specification, “volatility itself has no defined general thermodynamic quantity or value, but it is often described using vapor pressures or boiling points (for liquids) …high vapor pressures indicate a high volatility.” From showing evaporation rate is directly proportional with vapor pressure (and volatility is proportional with vapor pressure) it is implicit volatility is proportional with evaporation rate,
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of GOL with MAC. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of an easier way of measurement as vapor pressure are more difficult to measure. .
Both GOL and MAC2 are in the same art, and implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by RE1 and RE2 would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over GOL in view of MAC
GOL, MAC does not disclose, however GAF discloses
storing, in a database, the calculated evaporation rate and the volatility calculated{[0014] There is a need in the an. for odor evaluation devices capable of sampling and analysing odorant materials and providing descriptors associated with the sampled odorant material and complying
with human subjects' perception. Thus, one aspect of the present invention concerns construction of a global scent perception database (also referred to herein as olfactive or scent database) of odorant materials. [0016] The term "olfactive descriptor" or "scent descriptor" refers to data/parameter that describes scent characteristics e.g., Intensity, pleasantness, olfactive families such as
defined by descriptors in Dravnieks atlas, for example, Fruity, Floral, etc. in the database records. Each olfactive descriptor has a certain value/score obtained from the biologic nose ( e.g., one or more panelists) on an objective scale. More particularly, the term relates to the properties of a
scent, technical or not, influencing and/or describing its perception such as: cognitive perception, behavioral, physico-chemical properties, psychological, psychophysical, organoleptic properties, pleasantness, repulsion, intensity, odor threshold, molecular weight, molecular size, molecular branching, molecular surface area, droplets size, the tendency to absorb liquids, ionization potential, "irritation" level, familiarity, blotter life, evaporation rate, vapor pressure, humidity of scent sample, temperature of scent sample, etc. }
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of GOL, MAC with GAF. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of further using the data related to volatility and fragrance for analysis and prediction of fragrance evolution in various scenarios.
Both GOL. MAC and GAF are in the same or related art, and implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by the two would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over GOL, MAC in view of GAF.
Regarding independent claim 12, interpreted under 112(f) (see claim interpretation above)
GOL teaches
a means of controlled deposition of a chemical compound in an inert container, a means of airflow generation, the airflow being directed in the direction of the deposited chemical compound, a means (315) of measurement of a quantity of evaporated chemical compound at different measurement times, ,{ [p. 5 middle] analytical balance 3, capillary 4, designed to replenish evaporated liquid; figure; [p4 bottom] the test substance is placed in a closed volume; { p. 5 middle] compressor 7, creating a flow of gaseous medium through a closed volume 2;figure; [p4 botom] determining the evaporation rate by measuring the mass loss of the test substance with a purge above the evaporation surface of the gas medium, the test substance is placed in a closed volume, the mass loss is measured continuously; [p6]the mass loss of the test liquid is measured at equal intervals of time. } pump and capillary are equivalent (translation, in essence narrow opening controlled release via narrow opening); pump and compressor are equivalent; compound presence and quantity sensor equivalent to analytical balance.
a means of evaporation rate calculation depending on the measured evaporated chemical compound quantities measured, { Calculating the evaporation rate using formula (2) yields
PNG
media_image7.png
200
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Similar calculations for different flow rates of the blowdown medium, different evaporation surfaces and initial data show that the obtained values of the evaporation rate coincide within the limits of measurement error (up to 2%). The proposed method allows us to relate the evaporation rate to the concentration field in the space in which evaporation occurs,”}
GOL discloses relating the evaporation rate to the concentration field in the space in which evaporation occurs. GOL does not disclose calculations using a regression model, however
MAC teaches a means of volatility calculation depending on the evaporation rate calculated { [10260 bottom] The evaporation rate E can then be expressed one either a molar or mass basis as….
PNG
media_image6.png
374
390
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The art shows evaporation rate proportional with vapor pressure. It also shows a model which can be considered a linear regression model As known to POSITA and per specification, “volatility itself has no defined general thermodynamic quantity or value, but it is often described using vapor pressures or boiling points (for liquids) …high vapor pressures indicate a high volatility.” From showing evaporation rate is directly proportional with vapor pressure (and volatility is proportional with vapor pressure) it is implicit volatility is proportional with evaporation rate,
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of GOL with MAC. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of an easier way of measurement as vapor pressure are more difficult to measure. .
Both GOL and MAC2 are in the same art, and implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by RE1 and RE2 would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over GOL in view of MAC
GOL, MAC does not disclose, however GAF discloses
a means of storing, in a database, the calculated evaporation rate and the volatility calculated.
{ [0014] There is a need in the an. for odor evaluation devices capable of sampling and analysing odorant materials and providing descriptors associated with the sampled odorant material and complying
with human subjects' perception. Thus, one aspect of the present invention concerns construction of a global scent perception database (also referred to herein as olfactive or scent database) of odorant materials. [0016] The term "olfactive descriptor" or "scent descriptor" refers to data/parameter that describes scent characteristics e.g., Intensity, pleasantness, olfactive families such as
defined by descriptors in Dravnieks atlas, for example, Fruity, Floral, etc. in the database records. Each olfactive descriptor has a certain value/score obtained from the biologic nose ( e.g., one or more panelists) on an objective scale. More particularly, the term relates to the properties of a
scent, technical or not, influencing and/or describing its perception such as: cognitive perception, behavioral, physico-chemical properties, psychological, psychophysical, organoleptic properties, pleasantness, repulsion, intensity, odor threshold, molecular weight, molecular size, molecular branching, molecular surface area, droplets size, the tendency to absorb liquids, ionization potential, "irritation" level, familiarity, blotter life, evaporation rate, vapor pressure, humidity of scent sample, temperature of scent sample, etc. }
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of GOL, MAC with GAF. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of further using the data related to volatility and fragrance for analysis and prediction of fragrance evolution in various scenarios.
Both GOL. MAC and GAF are in the same or related art, and implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by the two would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over GOL, MAC in view of GAF.
Claim 4 is interpreted to be directed to a process to predict fragrance metrics starting with
selection of chemicals compounds and their quantity,
obtaining values for deposition, such as airflow (V) and surface area (A) for the deposition
computing evaporated mass (m) based on quantity of each component (M=V*ro=A*h*ro), Area (A); airflow measure (Q ) a constant/coefficient for each component and – an evaporation rate (ER) /or volatility (VO), from a database constructed according to method of claim 1 - thus m=f(Q, A, V, ER)
displaying a measure of computed ER/VO
Regarding claim 4, 13 GOL/MAC/GAF disclose the construction method of claim 1, in which that an evaporation rate is stored – the implicit intent of storing is for using that information when needed, thus, GOL/AC/GAF disclose an evaporation rate (ER) /or volatility (VO), from a database constructed according to method of claim 1)
GOL further teaches
a STEP (220) of simulating, by a computing system, for at least one (modeled) deposited chemical compound, the stripped quantity of said chemical compound in an airflow for at least two different times as a function of: the quantity of each said chemical compound, a first value representative of a virtual surface size of the deposited chemical compound, a second value representative of a virtual airflow directed at the deposited chemical compound configured to virtually strip the chemical compound from the surface, a third value representative of an activity coefficient of each said chemical compound and an evaporation rate or volatility associated to said chemical compound {p 2: The invention relates to the experimental determination of the evaporation of substances and can be used in the study of the kinetics of evaporation of liquids, and its results in the calculation of mass exchange processes and apparatuses associated with evaporation from an open surface.; page 7 Equation (2) Page 11 equation of evaporation rate x.}
While each formula is shown separately and various terms are substituted numerically, the equation on page 11, derived replacing numerical values in equation 2, shows the relationship between the evaporation rate, ER and the of Concentration of Vapors and Concentration at Saturation, Airflow debit Area and depth of liquid ER=ConcVap*Q)/ A*(ComcSat-ConcVap) . Furthermore that relationship incorporates both the stripped mass mass m (0.014286 g) (bottom of page 9) and the quantity of the compound as given that concentration and volume of liquid are known. The relationship which is at page 11 used to calculate the evaporation rate as a function of mass airflow etc, can be used to extract the mas as unknown and solving the equation for mass of stripped quantity m as suggested/indicated by the phrase “results in the calculation of mass exchange processes and apparatuses associated with evaporation from an open surface”.
GAF further teaches:
a STEP (205) of selecting at least one chemical compound identifier in a computerized interface, a STEP (210) of inputting, for each selected chemical compound, a quantity of said chemical compound, { [0063] The source of odorant material may be selected from of the following: [0118] the HMI unit may comprise at least one input device (e.g., keyboard, pointing device and suchlike) and at least one output device (e.g., speakers, touch screen, and suchlike).
a STEP (225) of displaying, for each chemical compound, of an indicator representative of the computed evaporated mass of said compound over time. {[0071] For example without limiting, create a visual display of the olfactive perception e.g., by assigning a specific color to each perceptive descriptor and indicating the determine level of each descriptor by the intensity of the color associated with it. Accordingly, system may further comprise a human machine interface (HMI) for receiving data inputs and instructions from a user and for presenting to the user data on a display device of the HMI. [0072] In some embodiments the olfactive descriptors and/or olfactive index, and/or olfactive perception and/or final score is presented in a way selected from: (a) numerical; (b) graphical; and any combination thereof. [0017] The term “olfactive descriptor” or “scent descriptor” refers to data/parameter that describes scent characteristics e.g., Intensity, pleasantness, olfactive families such as defined by descriptors in Dravnieks atlas, for example, Fruity, Floral, etc. in the database records. Each olfactive descriptor has a certain value/score obtained from the biologic nose (e.g., one or more panelists) on an objective scale. More particularly, the term relates to the properties of a scent, technical or not, influencing and/or describing its perception such as: cognitive perception, behavioral, physico-chemical properties, psychological, psychophysical, organoleptic properties, pleasantness, repulsion, intensity, odor threshold, molecular weight, molecular size, molecular branching, molecular surface area, droplets size, the tendency to absorb liquids, ionization potential, “irritation” level, familiarity, blotter life, evaporation rate, vapor pressure, humidity of scent sample, temperature of scent sample, etc. }
a STEP (215) of modeling a deposition of the quantity of each selected chemical compound on a virtual surface, [0123] The concentration of the odorant in the sample may be controllably changed …the control unit may regulate the flow rate of the dilution gas and thereby reduce the concentration of the odorant in the sample to a predefined percentage needed for the analysis by the analyzing module; Claim 38 38. The system of claim 37 wherein the equilibrium state is achieved by increasing vaporization using at least one of the following: surface area expansion process, increasing odorant flow rate, heating the odorant material, or changing pressure conditions thereof.}
In BRI and in view of the specification modeling is setting parameters for use of composition.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of GOL/MAC/GAF with further teaching of GAF. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of being able to run the simulation and to visualize the results.
GOL, MAC, GAF are all in the same art, and implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Their elements would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, and thus the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over GOL/MAC/GAF.
Regarding claim 11, depending on claim 4:
GOL/MAC/GAF teaches all the limitations of claim 4, of the prediction method. Claim 11 further recites the limitations of claim 1, of construction method (100) Combining the limitations of claim 4, with the limitations of claim 1, which was considered parent claim to claim 4 , has already been shown as being obvious. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over GOL/MAC/GAF.
Regarding claim 5(4) GOL/MAC/GAF teaches the limitations of parent claim 4.
GOL further teaches
computing a gas phase concentration of the virtually stripped chemical compound as a function of the stripped quantity computed,{ p.9 The concentration of toluene vapor in the ideal mixing volume and at the outlet of the closed volume is determined without the aid of a gas analyzer, by measuring the mass loss; p10 -concentration in the ideal mixing zone.
GAF further teaches
the STEP (225) of displaying being configured to display the gas phase concentration computed. [0071] For example without limiting, create a visual display of the olfactive perception e.g., by assigning a specific color to each perceptive descriptor and indicating the determine level of each descriptor by the intensity of the color associated with it. Accordingly, system may further comprise a human machine interface (HMI) for receiving data inputs and instructions from a user and for presenting to the user data on a display device of the HMI. [0072] In some embodiments the olfactive descriptors and/or olfactive index, and/or olfactive perception and/or final score is presented in a way selected from: (a) numerical; (b) graphical; and any combination thereof. [0017] The term “olfactive descriptor” or “scent descriptor” refers to data/parameter that describes scent characteristics e.g., Intensity, pleasantness, olfactive families such as defined by descriptors in Dravnieks atlas, for example, Fruity, Floral, etc. in the database records. Each olfactive descriptor has a certain value/score obtained from the biologic nose (e.g., one or more panelists) on an objective scale. More particularly, the term relates to the properties of a scent, technical or not, influencing and/or describing its perception such as: cognitive perception, behavioral, physico-chemical properties, psychological, psychophysical, organoleptic properties, pleasantness, repulsion, intensity, odor threshold, molecular weight, molecular size, molecular branching, molecular surface area, droplets size, the tendency to absorb liquids, ionization potential, “irritation” level, familiarity, blotter life, evaporation rate, vapor pressure, humidity of scent sample, temperature of scent sample, etc.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of GOL/MAC/GAF with further teaching of GAF. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of being able to run the simulation and to visualize the results.
GOL, MAC, GAF are all in the same art, and implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Their elements would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, and thus the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over GOL/MAC/GAF.
Claims 2, 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golovsky et al , SU 1013822 A (“GOL”) in view of Mackay et al Correlation of Chemical Evaporation Rate with Vapor Pressure, AMC dx.doi.org/10.1021/es5029074 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 10259−10263 (“MAC“) in further view of Gafsou US 20160091470 A1 (“GAF”) in further view of Mainland et al rom molecule to mind: an integrative perspective on odor intensity Trends in Neurosciences August 2014, Vol. 37, No. 8 (“MAI”)
Regarding claim 2 GOL/MAC/GAF discloses the limitations of claim 1. GOL further discloses
a STEP of computing at least one gas phase concentration of a chemical compound for a given volatility of chemical compound, {dependence of the concentration of CO at the outlet obeys the relationship
PNG
media_image8.png
200
400
media_image8.png
Greyscale
which indicates that conditions corresponding to ideal mixing have been established in the ventilated volume}
GAF further discloses
a STEP of recording, in a database, the psychophysical intensity formula modeled parameters. { [0014] There is a need in the an. for odor evaluation devices capable of sampling and analysing odorant materials and providing descriptors associated with the sampled odorant material and complying
with human subjects' perception. Thus, one aspect of the present invention concerns construction of a global scent perception database (also referred to herein as olfactive or scent database) of odorant materials. [0016] The term "olfactive descriptor" or "scent descriptor" refers to data/parameter that describes scent characteristics e.g., Intensity, pleasantness, olfactive families such as
defined by descriptors in Dravnieks atlas, for example, Fruity, Floral, etc. in the database records. Each olfactive descriptor has a certain value/score obtained from the biologic nose ( e.g., one or more panelists) on an objective scale. More particularly, the term relates to the properties of a
scent, technical or not, influencing and/or describing its perception such as: cognitive perception, behavioral, physico-chemical properties, psychological, psychophysical, organoleptic properties, pleasantness, repulsion, intensity, odor threshold, molecular weight, molecular size, molecular branching, molecular surface area, droplets size, the tendency to absorb liquids, ionization potential, "irritation" level, familiarity, blotter life, evaporation rate, vapor pressure, humidity of scent sample, temperature of scent sample, etc. }
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of GOL, MAC with GAF. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of further using the data related to volatility and fragrance for analysis and prediction of fragrance evolution in various scenarios.
Both GOL. MAC and GAF are in the same or related art, and implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by the two would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over GOL, MAC in view of GAF.
GOL/MAC/GAF does not disclose, however MAI discloses
a STEP of measurement of the psychophysical intensity of a chemical compound for at least one said gas phase concentration, a STEP of modeling of a mathematical formula of psychophysical intensity as a function of gas phase concentration based on at least two of the measured gas phase concentration values { {p 444 bottom, left col] Empirically, the perceived intensity of an odorant is a monotonic, sigmoidal function of the logarithm of odorant concentration, although most early observations captured only the linear portion over a middle range of concentrations. ; [p445 top]
PNG
media_image9.png
188
624
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Thus, at the level of the primary sensory neurons, odorant concentration could be encoded in spike frequency, number of spikes generated, and/or latency to first spike (Figure 1); Fig. 2; [p445 left col Chemical signals detected by olfactory receptors (OR) in OSNs are transformed into sequences of action potentials or spikes relayed to the brain
{P 446] Figure 1. Odorant concentration coding in olfactory sensory neurons (OSNs). Fig 1;
PNG
media_image10.png
177
224
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Model psy f(concentr) (2 points/curve)
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of GOL/MAC/GAF with those of MAI. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to link the concentration with the human perception of fragrance to derive models of human perception from automated measurements.
Both GOL/MAC/GAF and MAI are in the same art, and implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by GOL/MAC/GAF and MAI would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over GOL/MAC/GAF in further view of MAI
Re claim 6: In BRI claim 6 further limits claim 5 including computing one or more concentrations for a given volatility/evaporation rate, measuring the olfactory response dependency on concentration, modeling the relationship between olfactory response and concentration and recording this characteristic.
Regarding claim 6(5) GOL/MAC/GAF teaches the limitations of the parent claim.
GOL further teaches
a STEP (135) of computing at least one gas phase concentration of a chemical compound for a given volatility of chemical compound, {[p 2] purging with a gaseous medium is carried out at a flow rate at which the concentration of CCO2 in the medium in the closed volume has a value
PNG
media_image11.png
200
400
media_image11.png
Greyscale
[p. 9] The concentration of toluene vapor in the ideal mixing volume and at the outlet of the closed volume is determined…” }
GOL/MAC/GAF does not teach, however MAI teaches
a STEP (140) of measurement of the psychophysical intensity of a chemical compound for at least one said gas phase concentration, a STEP (145) of modeling of a mathematical formula of psychophysical intensity as a function of gas phase concentration based on at least two of the measured gas phase concentration values and wherein the prediction method (200) further comprises a STEP (235) of computing a psychophysical intensity of each selected chemical compound as a function of the gas phase concentration computed, {p. 443 bottom “GCaMP2 in OSNs, and in mitral/tufted cells, have been used to map patterns of glomerular activity encoding different odorants. “ p 444 bottom, left col] Empirically, the perceived intensity of an odorant is a monotonic, sigmoidal function of the logarithm of odorant concentration, although most early observations captured only the linear portion over a middle range of concentrations. ; [p445 top]
PNG
media_image9.png
188
624
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Thus, at the level of the primary sensory neurons, odorant concentration could be encoded in spike frequency, number of spikes generated, and/or latency to first spike (Figure 1); Fig. 2; [p445 left col Chemical signals detected by olfactory receptors (OR) in OSNs are transformed into sequences of action potentials or spikes relayed to the brain
{P 446] Figure 1. Odorant concentration coding in olfactory sensory neurons (OSNs). Fig 1;
PNG
media_image10.png
177
224
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Model psy f(concentr) (2 points/curve)
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of GOL/MAC/GAF with MAI. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of being able determine the effect of various substances, and simulation such response when needed or attempt to replicate it from a known composition.
GOL, MAC, GAF and MAI are all in the same or related art, and implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Their elements would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, and thus the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over GOL/MAC/GAF/MAI.
GAF further teaches
-a STEP (150) of recording, in a database, the psychophysical intensity formula modeled parameters; the STEP (225) of displaying being configured to display the psychophysical intensity computed over time. {{ [0063] The source of odorant material may be selected from of the following: [0118] the HMI unit may comprise at least one input device (e.g., keyboard, pointing device and suchlike) and at least one output device (e.g., speakers, touch screen, and suchlike). [0071] For example without limiting, create a visual display of the olfactive perception e.g., by assigning a specific color to each perceptive descriptor and indicating the determine level of each descriptor by the intensity of the color associated with it. Accordingly, system may further comprise a human machine interface (HMI) for receiving data inputs and instructions from a user and for presenting to the user data on a display device of the HMI. [0072] In some embodiments the olfactive descriptors and/or olfactive index, and/or olfactive perception and/or final score is presented in a way selected from: (a) numerical; (b) graphical; and any combination thereof. [0017] The term “olfactive descriptor” or “scent descriptor” refers to data/parameter that describes scent characteristics e.g., Intensity, pleasantness, olfactive families such as defined by descriptors in Dravnieks atlas, for example, Fruity, Floral, etc. in the database records. Each olfactive descriptor has a certain value/score obtained from the biologic nose (e.g., one or more panelists) on an objective scale. More particularly, the term relates to the properties of a scent, technical or not, influencing and/or describing its perception such as: cognitive perception, behavioral, physico-chemical properties, psychological, psychophysical, organoleptic properties, pleasantness, repulsion, intensity, odor threshold, molecular weight, molecular size, molecular branching, molecular surface area, droplets size, the tendency to absorb liquids, ionization potential, “irritation” level, familiarity, blotter life, evaporation rate, vapor pressure, humidity of scent sample, temperature of scent sample, etc. }
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of GOL/MAC/GAF/MAI with further teaching of GAF. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of bring able record, reuse for analysis and synthesis .
GOL, MAC, GAF, MAI are all in the same art, and implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Their elements would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, and thus the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over GOL/MAC/GAF/MAI.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golovsky et al , SU 1013822 A (“GOL”) in view of Mackay et al Correlation of Chemical Evaporation Rate with Vapor Pressure, AMC dx.doi.org/10.1021/es5029074 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 10259−10263 (“MAC“) in further view of Gafsou US 20160091470 A1 (“GAF”) in further view of Orlova et al EVAPORATION RATE OF A LIQUID LAYER STREAMLINED BY GAS FLOW IN MINICHANNEL )”ORL”)
Regarding claim 3 GOL/MAC/GAF discloses the limitations of claim 1 which include the limitation of calculating the evaporation rate for a temperature and storing it.
GOL/MAC/GAF does not disclose, however ORL discloses
a plurality of STEPs of controlled deposition of a chemical compound at different temperature, { the values of liquid temperature were 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 °С. The interface area was constant (100 mm2). The values of liquid layer thickness were 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 mm.}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of GOL/MAC/GAF with those of ORL. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of having evaporation rates for a diversity of liquid temperatures to assess evaporation rate as a function of temperature.
Both GOL/MAC/GAF and ORL are in the same art, and implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by GOL/MAC/GAF and ORL would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over GOL/MAC/GAF in further view of ORL.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golovsky et al , SU 1013822 A (“GOL”) in view of Mackay et al Correlation of Chemical Evaporation Rate with Vapor Pressure, AMC dx.doi.org/10.1021/es5029074 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 10259−10263 (“MAC“) in further view of Gafsou US 20160091470 A1 (“GAF”) in further view of Mainland et al, From molecule to mind: an integrative perspective on odor intensity, Trends in Neurosciences August 2014, Vol. 37, No. 8 (“MAI”) in further view of Chudziak, ON WEIGHTED QUASI–ARITHMETIC MEANS WHICH ARE CONVEX, Mathematical Inequality Applications, Vol 22, N. 4, 2019 (“CHU”)
Claim 7 is interpreted to limit claim 6 in which 2 on which the perception of a cumulative mixture. Considering a the odor to concentration a direction function f, and the concentration to odor the inverse f-1 a cumulative odor perception is the inverse of the two which is the mapping via a as inverse function (concentration->odor) function F of a sum of virtual concentrations, I=F(C1+C2), where virtual concentrations determined through the inverse of function F, C1=F-1(i1), C2=F-1(i2), (from a the respective perceived intensities using respective dose-response curves, thus i1=f1(c1), i2=f2(2))
C1 and c2 being the concentrations of the compounds and f1 and f2 there respective dose-response curves. Thus the method described is a specific case of the Generalized Concentration Addition Model, or Quasi-arithmetic sum as used in quasi-arithmetic mean, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-arithmetic_mean which can be illustrated by applying Stevens’ law through the inverse and then forward mapping Stevens’law formula. Cumulative perception as inverse function f-1 of a cumulative/sum of two values mapped through the direct function: Cumulative (perception1, perception2) = f-1(f(perception1)+f(perception2))
The method to obtain the cumulative perception of two perceptions x1 and x2 is a simple particular case of a classic function in mathematics called weighted quasi-arithmetic mean shown below, the particular case where all weighting factors p1 to pn are equal to 1 in the mapping, thus the inverse of the sum of direct functions of the two perceptions (in our case a ‘dummy—function’/inverse )
PNG
media_image12.png
51
422
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7 GOL/MAC/GAF/MAI teaches the limitations of claim 6. MAI further teaches
matching a value for concentration for each compound against the corresponding dose-response curve to provide a perceived intensity value for that compound, {p 444 bottom, left col] Empirically, the perceived intensity of an odorant is a monotonic, sigmoidal function of the logarithm of odorant concentration, although most early observations captured only the linear portion over a middle range of concentrations. ; [p445 top]
PNG
media_image9.png
188
624
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Thus, at the level of the primary sensory neurons, odorant concentration could be encoded in spike frequency, number of spikes generated, and/or latency to first spike (Figure 1); Fig. 2; [p445 left col Chemical signals detected by olfactory receptors (OR) in OSNs are transformed into sequences of action potentials or spikes relayed to the brain
{P 446] Figure 1. Odorant concentration coding in olfactory sensory neurons (OSNs). Fig 1;
PNG
media_image10.png
177
224
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Model psy f(concentr) (2 points/curve) }
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of GOL/MAC/GAF/MAI with the specific teaching of MAI. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of being able determine the psychophysical effect of various substances, and simulate such response when needed or attempt to replicate it for a given concentration.
GOL, MAC, GAF and MAI are all in the same or related art, and implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Their elements would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, and thus the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over GOL/MAC/GAF/MAI.
GAF further teaches
displaying being configured to display the global psychophysical intensity computed over time. {[0071] For example without limiting, create a visual display of the olfactive perception e.g., by assigning a specific color to each perceptive descriptor and indicating the determine level of each descriptor by the intensity of the color associated with it. Accordingly, system may further comprise a human machine interface (HMI) for receiving data inputs and instructions from a user and for presenting to the user data on a display device of the HMI. [0072] In some embodiments the olfactive descriptors and/or olfactive index, and/or olfactive perception and/or final score is presented in a way selected from: (a) numerical; (b) graphical; and any combination thereof. [0017] The term “olfactive descriptor” or “scent descriptor” refers to data/parameter that describes scent characteristics e.g., Intensity, pleasantness, olfactive families such as defined by descriptors in Dravnieks atlas, for example, Fruity, Floral, etc. in the database records. Each olfactive descriptor has a certain value/score obtained from the biologic nose (e.g., one or more panelists) on an objective scale. More particularly, the term relates to the properties of a scent, technical or not, influencing and/or describing its perception such as: cognitive perception, behavioral, physico-chemical properties, psychological, psychophysical, organoleptic properties, pleasantness, repulsion, intensity, odor threshold, molecular weight, molecular size, molecular branching, molecular surface area, droplets size, the tendency to absorb liquids, ionization potential, “irritation” level, familiarity, blotter life, evaporation rate, vapor pressure, humidity of scent sample, temperature of scent sample, etc. }
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of GOL/MAC/GAF/MAI with further teaching of GAF. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of being able to run the visualize the results. GOL, MAC, GAF, MAI are all in the same art, and implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Their elements would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, and thus the results of the combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over GOL/MAC/GAF/MAI.
GOL/MAC/GAF/MAI does not teach, however CHU teaches
a second STEP (242) of matching each said perceived intensity value against a dummy dose-response curve to provide an artificial compound concentration value, a STEP (243) of addition of each artificial compound concentration value to form a virtual concentration value and a third STEP (244) of matching the virtual concentration value against the dummy dose-response curve to provide a total perceived intensity value for the composition. { p1124 bottom)
PNG
media_image13.png
94
483
media_image13.png
Greyscale
} for simplest case where p1 =..pn =1 and using letter f for the function, f-1 (f(x1)+f(x2));
Steps 242 is interpreted as the f(x), thus f(x1) and f(x2); step 243 is interpreted as (f(x1)+f(x2); step 244 is interpreted as f-1 inverse function mapping of the sum, thus f-1 (f(x1)+f(x2));
Claims 8-10 are indicates as containing allowable subject matter. The prior art of record, including that applied in the above rejections, fails to teach or suggest the limitations directed to computing a psychophysical intensity linearity of the composition of two compounds over time (for claim 8, dependent on claim 6), chemical compound identified being selected if the psychophysical intensity at a given time is below a determined value (for claim 9, dependent on claim 6), computing of the composition evolution as a function of the stripped quantity overt time (for claim 10, dependent on claim 4) . Furthermore, the combination of the cited references would not have rendered these limitations obvious to a POSITA before the time of the invention. Accordingly, if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and intervening claims, claims 8-10 would be allowable over the prior art of record.
Prior art made of record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
LI et al US 20190286792 A1
Almeida et al Evaporation and Permeation of Fragrance Applied to the Skin Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2019, 58, 9644−9650
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN STOICA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. -5 p.m. PT.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188