DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to communications: Request for Continued Examination filed on 5/28/2026 to application filed on 11/29/2022 which has provisional application filed on 05/29/2020.
Claims 4, 6, are currently canceled. Claim 1 is currently amended.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-29 are pending in the case. Claim 1 is independent claim.
All rejections and objections in the previous office action not set forth below have been withdrawn as necessitated by the amendment.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/28/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 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. The amended limitation, the representation of the two or more sensations comprising the reference location, is not supported by Applicant’s disclosure. Paragraphs 0036-0037 and Figures 2A-2B clearly show that the claimed reference location is separate from each of the two or more sensations. The reference location cannot comprise the two or more sensations since a distance, "D," of the selection location from a specified reference location (Paragraph 0036) along a sensation indication can be used to obtain data indicative of the intensity of a selected sensation (Paragraph 0037).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-18, 20, 23-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vignalou-Marche, US 2006/0041386 as supplied in IDs filed on 11/29/2022, in view of Pulito et al., US 2014/0006298 and further in view of Doerring (US 20100199224 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Vignalou-Marche teaches a method of automatically assessing dominance of sensation, the method comprising:
generating a representation of two or more sensations and a reference location for display to a user, the representation of the two or more sensations comprising the reference location, [the amended limitation is not supported by Applicant’s disclosure. Paragraphs 0036-0037 and Figures 2A-2B clearly show that the claimed reference location is separate from each of the two or more sensations. Vignalou-Marche discloses an analogous UI configuration as shown in Figures 2 and 6-10, with the START location being analogous to the claimed reference location and each DESCRIPTOR being being analogous to the claimed sensations. Figure 4 and Paragraph 0037 disclose that each of the DESCRIPTORS are input zones that is continuous over a range of values] (Vignalou-Marche, [0056-0060 fig 2] an interface comprising a plurality of input zones corresponding to a number of descriptors for analysis comprising a number of input zones concentrically arranged around a center; [0066] a selector provide a continues input for the user; [0091-0092 figs 6-10] the center is a start button that starts timing as soon as it is activated; [0102]-[0114] displaying descriptors on user interface) The claim language simply required that representations of one or more sensations, which are analogous to the input zones of Vignalou-Marche, and a reference location, which is analogous to the start button of Vignalou-Marche, be generated for display;
receiving respective selections of respective sensations amongst the two or more sensations in response to display of the representation, wherein the receiving the respective selections of respective sensations comprises (Vignalou-Marche, [0102]-[0114]; each tester selects the descriptors in time of testing);
obtaining data indicative of a magnitude of the respective sensations corresponding to the respective selections including obtaining a location of an indicium from a user placed within a selectable region corresponding to a respective sensation (Vignalou-Marche, [0102]-[0114]; number of selecting a descriptor; descriptor that is dominant as a function of time); and
obtaining data indicative of a temporal relationship between the respective selections (Vignalou-Marche, [0102]-[0114]; recording time when descriptors are selected).
However, Vignalou-Marche does not teach the obtaining the data indicative of the magnitude includes determining a distance of the indicium from the reference location separate from the selectable region.
Pulito teaches obtaining the data indicative of the magnitude includes determining a distance of the indicium from a reference location separate from the selectable region (Pulito, fig.5A-C; [0067]; rating higher or lower location comparing to a reference point). Doerring teaches ([0019] a pointing device can be deflected about a center of a motion area; [0026] a circular area with items to be selected by displacing the pointing device in the motion area towards one of the selectable areas);
In Vignalou-Marche, the user must first select the start button to make a selection in one of the input zones by continuously sliding within an input zone. Combining Doerring with Pulito and Vignalou-Marche would provide an interface similar to the interface show in Applicant’s Figure 3, and to which the claims are drawn.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filling date of the invention, to have combined Pulito’s and Doerring’s teaching and Vignalou-Marche’s teaching to include obtaining the data indicative of the magnitude includes determining a distance of the indicium from the reference location separate from the selectable region, since the combination would have facilitated the user/tester to provide ratings/feedbacks using a reference point for higher or lower ratings as Pulito disclosed.
Vignalou-Marche does not disclose wherein the reference location is separate from the selectable region and the reference location is not the selectable region, as disclosed in the claims. As noted above, the start button of Vignalou-Marche is separate from the selectable region and is not the selectable region in a similar manner as claimed. Doerring discloses a selection vector is input by a user moved according to a motion vector with a pointing device to move a cursor, where the magnitude of the motion vector is relative to the current location of the crosshairs moved, and adjusted based on the location of the crosshair relative to the center position and the magnitude of the deflection [0028] such that the characteristics of the motion vector is based on a distance from a reference point and the speed or quantity of deflection of a pointing device [0038].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filling date of the invention, to have combined Doerring’s teaching and Vignalou-Marche’s teaching to provide an added degree of differentiation in a user’s selection of objects on a user interface to further indicate the difference between two points.
Regarding claim 2, which is dependent on claim 1, Vignalou-Marche teaches wherein the representation of the two or more sensations includes a graphical representation comprising selectable regions corresponding to each sensation (Vignalou-Marche, [0066]-[0071]; selecting descriptors and placing a value for each of the descriptors).
Regarding claim 3, which is dependent on claim 1, Vignalou-Marche teaches wherein the generating the representation comprises generating respective regions corresponding to each sensation, the regions extending radially from a central region of the representation (Vignalou-Marche, figures 2, 6-14; [0102]-[0114]).
Regarding claim 5, which is dependent on claim 1, Vignalou-Marche teaches wherein the indicium is provided using at least one of a touch-sensitive surface or a mouse, and wherein obtaining the data indicative of the magnitudes and temporal relationships corresponds to a trajectory of the indicium over time (Vignalou-Marche, [0066]-[0071]; tester places a slider to a value; [0102]-[0114]; recording time when descriptors are selected).
Regarding claim 7, which is dependent on claim 1, Vignalou-Marche teaches wherein the reference location comprises a central region of the representation (Vignalou-Marche, figures 2, 6-14; [0102]-[0114]).
Regarding claim 10, which is dependent on claim 1, Vignalou-Marche teaches wherein the receiving respective selections of respective sensations amongst the two or more sensations commences in response to a first user interface event (Vignalou-Marche, [0102]-[0114]; tester select descriptors).
Regarding claim 11, which is dependent on claim 10, Vignalou-Marche teaches wherein the first event comprises receiving a first indication from the user to commence receiving respective selections of respective sensations during a first phase of a test (Vignalou-Marche, [0091]-[0092]; start button for beginning of tasting).
Regarding claim 12, which is dependent on claim 10, Vignalou-Marche teaches wherein the method comprises receiving a second indication from the user corresponding to a second user interface event to commence receiving respective selections of respective sensations during a second phase of a test (Vignalou-Marche, [0126]-[0127]; repeat testing several times).
Regarding claim 13, which is dependent on claim 12, Vignalou-Marche teaches wherein the two or more sensations comprise taste sensations, wherein the first user interface event corresponds to an initiation of a taste test including a subject tasting a substance-under-test; wherein the second user interface event corresponds to the subject splitting out the substance-under-test (Vignalou-Marche, fig.6-10; [0092], [0126]-[0127]; start button for beginning of tasting taste sensations for a product; fig. 15; displaying results for the product with characteristics).
Regarding claim 14, which is dependent on claim 1, Vignalou-Marche teaches comprising obtaining two or more time-series representations of respective selections including magnitude data (Vignalou-Marche, fig.15; [0103]-[0105]; chocolate dominated, orange dominated).
Regarding claim 15, which is dependent on claim 14, Vignalou-Marche teaches comprising scaling one or more respective time-series representations in time to align respective instants corresponding to a specified event (Vignalou-Marche, fig.15; descriptors selections according to time scale).
Regarding claim 16, which is dependent on claim 14, Vignalou-Marche teaches comprising shifting one or more respective time-series representations in time to align respective instants corresponding to a specified event (Vignalou-Marche, fig.16; [0120]-[0122]; comparing descriptors with other products based on time).
Regarding claim 17, which is dependent on claim 14, Vignalou-Marche teaches comprising smoothing the two or more time-series representations (Sato, fig.2). (Vignalou-Marche, fig.17; [0123]-[0126]; comparing a descriptor for plurality of products).
Regarding claim 18, which is dependent on claim 1, Vignalou-Marche teaches comprising generating a plot representing a magnitude over time of a selected sensation amongst the two or more sensations (Vignalou-Marche, fig.15; [0103]-[0105]; chocolate dominated, orange dominated, acid dominated) .
Regarding claim 20, which is dependent on claim 1, Vignalou-Marche teaches comprising generating a phase plot having at least two axes, using a selected time series corresponding to a selected sensation amongst the two or more sensations (Vignalou-Marche, figures 15-16).
Regarding claim 23, which is dependent on claim 1, Vignalou-Marche teaches comprising assigning numerical values to respective sensations amongst the two or more sensations (Vignalou-Marche, [0066]-[0071]; tester places a slider to a value).
Regarding claim 24, which is dependent on claim 23, Vignalou-Marche teaches comprising generating a dominance time series by selecting a respective sensation meeting a specified criterion at corresponding instants in the dominance time series (Vignalou-Marche, [0103]-[0105]; chocolate dominated, orange dominated, acid dominated).
Regarding claim 25, which is dependent on claim 24, Vignalou-Marche teaches wherein the specified criterion corresponds to the respective sensation having the greatest magnitude at the corresponding instant in the dominance time series (Vignalou-Marche, [0103]-[0105]; chocolate dominated, orange dominated, acid dominated).
Regarding claim 26, which is dependent on claim 24, Vignalou-Marche teaches comprising smoothing the dominance time series (Vignalou-Marche, fig.17; [0123]-[0126]; comparing a descriptor for plurality of products).
Claim 27 is a system comprising at least one processor circuit and at least one memory circuit, the memory circuit comprising executions that, when executed by the at least one processor circuit, cause a system to perform the method of claim 1, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 28, which is dependent on claim 27, Vignalou-Marche teaches further comprising a display to present the representation of two or more sensations for display to a user and an input device to receive respective selections of respective sensations amongst the two or more sensations in response to display of the representation (Vignalou-Marche, [0102]-[0114]; displaying descriptors for users/testers select).
Claim 29 is for a computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by at least one processor circuit, cause a system to perform the method of claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vignalou-Marche, Pulito and Doerring as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of deCharms et al., US 2016/0005320.
Regarding claim 8, which is dependent on claim 1, deCharms teaches wherein obtaining data indicative of the magnitude includes generating an audible indication of the location of the indicium, the generating the audible indication occurring contemporaneously with receiving a respective selection of a respective sensation and the audible indication varying relative to the location (deCharms, claim 7, [0032], [0241], [0295]-[0297]; user indicates degrees of sensation using mouse, touch screen position, sound or voice).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filling date of the invention, to have combined deCharms’ teaching and Vignalou-Marche’s teaching to include obtaining data indicative of the magnitude includes generating an audible indication of the location of the indicium, the generating the audible indication occurring contemporaneously with receiving a respective selection of a respective sensation and the audible indication varying relative to the location, since the combination would have facilitated the user/tester to provide ratings/feedbacks using different means as deCharms disclosed in [0432].
Regarding claim 9, which is dependent on claim 8, deCharms teaches wherein the audible indication varies in at least one of magnitude or frequency in response to the location (deCharms, claim 7, [0032], [0241], [0295]-[0297] user indicates degrees of sensation using mouse, touch screen position, sound or voice). The same rationale of claim 8 is incorporated herein.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vignalou-Marche, Pulito and Doerring as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Allen et al., US 2015/0154278.
Regarding claim 19, which is dependent on claim 18, Allen teaches wherein the magnitude over time is represented using at least one of a color or luminance (Allen, [0014]; [0131]-[0132]; color-based indicates significance line plots).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filling date of the invention, to have combined Allen’s teaching and Vignalou-Marche’s teaching to include the magnitude over time is represented using at least one of a color or luminance, since the combination would have facilitated the user/tester to recognize different results/characteristics in colors.
Claim 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vignalou-Marche, Pulito and Doerring as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Sakurai et al., US 2013/0228016.
Regarding claim 21, which is dependent on claim 20, Doerring discloses the speed at which the selection set moves can be controlled by the degree of deflection of the pointing device (90 degrees) [0020] and modification of the motion vector is based on a distance from a reference point and the speed of deflection of a pointing device [0038] and Sakurai teaches wherein a first axis amongst the at least two axes comprises a velocity axis and a second axis amongst the at least two axes comprises an acceleration axis (Sakurai, fig.3; velocity axis and acceleration axis).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filling date of the invention, to have combined Sakurai’s teaching and Vignalou-Marche’s teaching to include a first axis amongst the at least two axes comprise a velocity axis and a second axis amongst the at least two axes comprises an acceleration axis, and wherein the velocity axis is plotted perpendicular to the acceleration axis, since the combination would have determined characteristic of the product, such as food texture as Sakurai disclosed.
Regarding claim 22, which is dependent on claim 21, Sakurai teaches comprising estimating respective velocities and accelerations using finite-difference techniques operating on the selected time series (Sakurai, abstract [0038], [0100]-[0102]; calculating food texture based on different from pink noise).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filling date of the invention, to have combined Sakurai’s teaching and Vignalou-Marche’s teaching to include estimating respective velocities and accelerations using finite-difference techniques operating on the selected time series, since the combination would have determined characteristic of the product, such as food texture as Sakurai disclosed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues: Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to include generating a representation of two or more sensations and a reference location for display to a user, the representation of the two or more sensations comprising the reference location. Without acquiescing to the particular comments made by the Examiner in the response to arguments section of the Office Action, Applicant respectfully submits that the present amendment directly addresses the issue raised by the Examiner regarding whether the claimed representation includes the reference location. Specifically, as now amended, claim 1 includes that the representation of the two or more sensations itself comprises the reference location. Applicant asserts that the reference location is a part of the displayed representation of sensations, not merely a separate or independent element on the interface. This is a distinct structural and functional relationship that is not taught or suggested by any of the cited references, whether taken alone or in combination. The combination of Vignalou-Marche, Pulito, and Doerring does not teach or suggest at least this claim feature, as discussed in detail below. The Office Action does not identify the claimed arrangement in the cited references. The Office Action maps Vignalou-Marche's interface and start button to the claimed "representation" and "reference location," but then expressly acknowledges that Vignalou-Marche "does not teach the obtaining the data indicative of the magnitude includes determining a distance of the indicium from the reference location separate from the selectable region" and relies on Pulito and Doerring for these features. Moreover, the Examiner characterizes the start button as a prerequisite control action, stating: "In Vignalou-Marche, the user must first select the start button to make a selection in one of the input zones." (Office Action, page 5.) Vignalou-Marche at paragraph [0091] confirms this, stating that the center of the interface "can be empty," "can present information," or "can present an activatable 'Start' button." The start button is a timing control element that initiates data collection that is functionally and structurally separate from the input zones that represent sensations. Accordingly, Vignalou-Marche does not disclose a representation of two or more sensations comprising the reference location.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Vignalou-Marche discloses an analogous UI configuration as shown in Figures 2 and 6-10, with the START location being analogous to the claimed reference location and each DESCRIPTOR being analogous to the claimed sensations. Figure 4 and Paragraph 0037 disclose that each of the DESCRIPTORS are input zones that is continuous over a range of values] (Vignalou-Marche, [0056-0060 fig 2]
Pulito teaches obtaining the data indicative of the magnitude includes determining a distance of the indicium from a reference location separate from the selectable region (Pulito, fig.5A-C; [0067]; rating higher or lower location comparing to a reference point). Doerring teaches ([0019] a pointing device can be deflected about a center of a motion area; [0026] a circular area with items to be selected by displacing the pointing device in the motion area towards one of the selectable areas). The examiner has not asserted that Vignalou-Marche discloses first selecting the START icon and then sliding an indicator along the DESCRIPTOR, as in Figure 4. In Vignalou-Marche, the user must first select the start button to make a selection in one of the input zones by continuously sliding within an input zone. Combining Doerring with Pulito and Vignalou-Marche would provide an interface similar to the interface show in Applicant’s Figure 3, and to which the claims are drawn.
The applicant argues: [t]he Examiner states that "[c]ombining Doerring with Pulito and Vignalou-Marche would provide an interface similar to the interface show in Applicant's Figure 3." (Office Action, page 5.) Applicant respectfully submits that this conclusion is unsupported. The Examiner provides no element-by-element mapping showing how the combination of these references arrives at a representation of two or more sensations comprising the reference location, as recited in claim 1. None of the cited references, individually or in combination, discloses a representation of two or more sensations that itself comprises a reference location. Vignalou-Marche's center is a timing control element for initiating data collection, Doerring's center is a motion-vector origin for adjusting cursor responsiveness, and Pulito has no spatial representation of sensations. Combining these references cannot yield what none of them contains.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. A user in Vignalou-Marche must first select the START icon which is displayed in the center of the DESCRIPTOR input zone to input a value of a continuous range of values. If continuous input DESCRIPTOR of Figure 4 is used in the arrangement of Figures 7 – 10, a user begins by selecting the START icon and then sliding along a continuous input DESCRIPTOR of any of Figures 7 – 10. However, this embodiment is not explicitly disclosed in Vignalou-Marche. The examiner rejected the limitations of the claims over Vignalou-Marche in view of Pulito and Doerring as described above.
The applicant argues: Furthermore, Applicant maintains that the cited combination of references fails to teach or suggest that "the reference location is separate from the selectable region and the reference location is not the selectable region," as recited in claim 1. The cited sections of Pulito show comparing a first product rating to a second product rating, and potentially updating the first product rating based on the second product rating using the same selectable scale. The product ratings, although compared to one another, do not include determining a distance of an indicium from a reference location, where the reference location is separate from the selectable region, as recited in claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As described above, the START icon in Vignalou-Marche is analogous to the claimed reference location, and the continuous DESCRIPTOR in Vignalou-Marche is analogous to the claimed sensation. Each are clearly separate graphics. The START icon is positioned in a center of an arrangement of DESCRIPTORS, the START icon must be selected and a user may select a value on the continuous input DESCRIPTOR.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M HEFFINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1696. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Cesar B Paula can be reached on 571-272-4128. 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.
/J.M.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2145 6/25/2026 /CHAU T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2145
Prosecution Insights