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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/5/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“Fragrance ingredient or composition spatial recognisability prediction method to prepare a fragrance composition comprising a fragrance ingredient associated with an ingredient digital identifier, comprising the steps of:
selecting, upon a computer interface, a measurable value representative of at least one of the following parameters:
a minimum sensory intensity level, corresponding to a predetermined minimum psychophysical intensity for the ingredient,
a maximum distance, corresponding to a distance at which the ingredient is to be perceived at a minimum predetermined psychophysical intensity level or
a quantity of the ingredient in liquid phase, wherein the selected value is selected within a range of at least two distinct value,
computing, by a computing system, a value representative of at least one of the following parameters:
a minimum sensory intensity level, corresponding to a predetermined minimum psychophysical intensity for the ingredient,
a maximum distance corresponding to a distance at which the ingredient is to be perceived at a minimum sensory intensity level selected or set by default, or
a quantity of the ingredient in liquid phase and
wherein the computed value is representative of a parameter other than the parameter associated with the selected value and wherein a value for the parameter neither selected nor computed is set to a default value, said ingredient digital identifier corresponding to a physical ingredient to be used within a fragrance composition to be prepared as a function of the computed and selected values, and
a step of providing, by a computing system, a preparable fragrance composition digital representation representative of a physical fragrance composition comprising said physical ingredient, as a function of the computed and selected values.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “computing, by a computing system, a value representative of either one of the following parameters:
a minimum sensory intensity level, corresponding to a predetermined minimum psychophysical intensity for the ingredient,
a maximum distance corresponding to a distance at which the ingredient is to be perceived at a minimum sensory intensity level selected or set by default, or
a quantity of the ingredient in liquid phase and
wherein the computed value is representative of a parameter other than the parameter associated with the selected value and
wherein a value for the parameter neither selected nor computed is set to a default value,
said computed value being computed as a function of the parameter associated with the selected value and the value for the parameter neither selected nor computed,
said an ingredient … to be prepared as a function of the computed and selected values” are treated as belonging to the mathematical concepts grouping
while the steps of
“selecting, upon a computer interface, a value representative of one or two between one and two of the following parameters:
a minimum sensory intensity level, corresponding to a predetermined minimum psychophysical intensity for the ingredient,
a maximum distance, corresponding to a distance at which the ingredient is to be perceived at a minimum predetermined psychophysical intensity level or
a quantity of the ingredient in liquid phase, wherein the selected value is selected within a range of at least two distinct value” and “ingredient digital identifier corresponding to a physical ingredient to be used within a fragrance composition” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping. These mental steps represent a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “selecting …a measurable value representative of at least one of the following parameters” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually making a selection/judgement of an appropriate (“representative”) parameter out of available parameters while “ingredient digital identifier corresponding to a physical ingredient to be used within a fragrance composition“ refer to assigning a digital identifier corresponding to a physical ingredient.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: Fragrance ingredient or composition spatial recognisability prediction method to prepare a fragrance composition comprising said fragrance ingredient or composition; using a computer interface and a computing system; a step of providing, by a computing system, a preparable fragrance composition digital representation representative of a physical fragrance composition comprising said physical ingredient, as a function of the computed and selected values.
The additional elements in the preamble are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claims such as a computer interface; a computing system are examples of generic computer equipment (components) that are generally recited and, therefore, are not qualified as particular machines.
A step of generically recited use of a computer interface to select parameter values represents insignificant represent extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
The amended limitation “A step of providing, by a computing system, a preparable fragrance composition digital representation representative of a physical fragrance composition comprising said physical ingredient, as a function of the computed and selected values” represents insignificant extra-solution activity of an additional elements that is not meaningful and corresponding to a step of outputting results that is recited in generality (MPEP 2106.05(g): “necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output)).
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-19 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claim and, therefore, these claims are not eligible either without additional elements that would reflect a practical application and/or qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
For example, Claim 2 further narrows the abstract idea of the independent claims adding more features of mental process (“selecting” and “determining” steps) and mathematical relationship (“calculating” and “computing” steps) without additional elements that would reflect a practical application and/or qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
Claim 3 includes further narrowing features of a mathematical relationship (“constructing matching minimum spatial dilution values to at least one distance from a fragrance value …”).
Similar situation with narrowing abstract ideas without meaningful/significantly more additional elements exists in Claims 4-19.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 101
With regards to Claim 20, Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 1/5/2026, with respect to Claim 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 101 rejection of Claim 20 has been withdrawn.
With regards to Claims 1-19, Applicant's arguments filed 1/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (p.11): Applicant's claims 11 - 17 each recite additional elements directed to predicting spatial recognizability for at least one selected ingredient digital identifier and preparing a fragrance composition as a function of the fragrance composition digital representation … at least Applicant's claims 11 - 17 integrate an improved method of "linking the quantity and the composition of a fragrance applied on a wearer to spatial reach of the ingredient at requested perceived intensity level in the trail behind the wearer," into a practical application of predicting the spatial recognizability for an ingredient digital identifier and preparing a fragrance.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees as no meaningful additional elements are actually recited to indicate a practical application and the Applicant did not provide any evidence which additional elements in the claims should be considered.
With regards to the “improve method” argument, the Examiner responded to a similar argument in the FOA 10/9/2025 on p.10.
The Applicant argues (p.12): Step 2A, Prong 1: The Claims Do Not Recite an Abstract Idea … Applicant respectfully submits that at least the above-recited limitations of the amended claim 1 are not directed to a mathematical concept.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the recitations of claim 1 are not reasonable performable in the human mind, at least because the human mind does not provide a preparable fragrance composition digital representation. Applicant further submits that at least providing a preparable fragrance composition is not a mathematical concept.
With regards to the mental process (“human mind”) argument, the Examiner responded to a similar argument in the FOA 10/9/2025 on pp.8-9. Additionally, “digital representation” is a product of (output) a mathematical and not a mental step and providing it belongs to an additional element as indicated in the rejection.
The Applicant argues (pp.14-16): assuming the claims recite an abstract idea (which they do not), the claims nonetheless recite additional elements that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application improving the field of fragrance composition ingredient selection generally, and the ability of computing systems to accurately model various aspects of fragrance ingredients relevant to selecting fragrance composition ingredients.
For example, claim 1 recites, in part
selecting, upon a computer interface, a measurable value representative of at least one of the following parameters … The above-recited elements recite a specific manner of identifying ingredients and quantities used to improve the process of determining a fragrance composition as a function of the selected or calculated values for at least one ingredient.
The Examiner submits that the “selecting” step represent an abstract idea step of a mental process while the accuracy improvement and the “specific manner” represents improvement in the abstract idea only as previously discussed.
The Applicant argues (p.17): Such novel linking of the quantity and composition of a fragrance to the spatial reach of the ingredient at a requested perceived intensity level for use in preparation of a fragrance composition, as claimed, is directed to a technical solution to the problem of automatically selecting ingredients used to prepare a fragrance composition according to selected and computed values. Thus, claim 1 as a whole is directed to a particular improvement in automated fragrance composition preparation. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the recitations of claim 1 integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and are therefore directed to patent eligible subject matter.
The Examiner disagrees as responded to a novelty argument previously. The Examiner considered the identified additional elements as a whole. However, it is unclear from the argument which additional elements as a whole demonstrate the integration as argued in Claims 1-19.
The Applicant argues (p.17): Even if it were assumed that amended claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 is directed to "significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea.
The Examiner disagrees as responded to a similar argument previously (FOA 10/9/2025, p.11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Examiner Note with Regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-19 are distinguished over prior art of record based on the reasons below.
In regards to Claim 1, the claim differs from the closest prior art, Wakayama, Young, Kita, De Oliviera, and Pereira, either singularly or in combination, because it fails to anticipate or render obvious computing a value representative of either one of parameters, wherein the computed value is representative of a parameter other than the parameter associated with the selected value and wherein a value for the parameter neither selected nor computed is set to a default value, said computed value being computed as a function of the parameter associated with the selected value and the value for the parameter neither selected nor computed, said ingredient digital identifier corresponding to a physical ingredient to be used within a fragrance composition to be prepared as a function of the computed and selected values, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863
Prosecution Insights