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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 06/15/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/15/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6, Applicant states that (i) the communication interface includes displaying via a web interface, some of the (ii) figures disclose embodiments on how to implement the prediction in a production line, and (iii) the process requires measuring the physiochemical properties. These are not persuasive because:
a communication interface is a broad term for a means to transfer information (see Specification page 8, line 10). The web interface is not required by the claim, and would still not be significantly more than the abstract idea as it is considered mere instructions to apply an exception, since the computer/web interface would be acting in their expected capacity (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.);
the production line is not part of the claimed system;
The claims do not positively recite measuring properties, therefore the limitation does not carry patentable weight. The claims only positively claim that the communication interface obtains data.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/15/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Beginning on page 7, Applicant states that the cited Greenway reference does not disclose the claimed system, because Greenway ultimately wants to determine whether a cream is to the liking of consumers. This is not persuasive because the claims as written recite: a computer system that uses a model to map at least one input physicochemical property to output at least one sensory attribute. The cited portions of Greenway still disclose predicting sensory properties of a cream based on the creams physical characteristics, even if Greenway goes a step further to address consumer satisfaction.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 recites: “the the outputted sensory attribute”. To promote compact prosecution the Examiner will omit the duplicate “the”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-12 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 1 recites: obtaining via the communication interface (112) at least identified by experimental measurement or at least one sensory attribute and at least one model relating one or more physico-chemical properties to one or more sensory attributes. This limitation is unclear because it is incomplete and makes the limitation that follows unclear as well. To promote compact prosecution the Examiner will interpret the claim limitation to be obtaining via the communication interface (112) at least one physico-chemical property of the oil or the mixture of oils identified by experimental measurement and at least one model relating one or more physico-chemical properties to one or more sensory attributes (analogous to claims 2 and 13).
Claims 3-12 are rejected for their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-15 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:
A system (110) for predicting sensory attributes of an oil or a mixture of oils for personal care, wherein the system (110) comprises at least one communication interface (112) for providing data and at least one processing device (114), wherein the processing device (114) is configured for:
obtaining via the communication interface (112) at least one physico-chemical property of the oil or the mixture of oils identified by experimental measurement and at least one model relating one or more physico-chemical properties to one or more sensory attributes;
determining at least one sensory attribute of the oil or the mixture of oils based on the obtained physico-chemical properties and the model;
outputting, via the communication interface (112) the determined sensory attribute.
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 (machine).
The Examiner notes that Claims 14 and 15, do not fall within one of the four statutory categories, are considered software per se, and are therefore not patent eligible.
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 grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “determining at least one sensory attribute of the oil or the mixture of oils based on the obtained physico-chemical properties and the model (determination based on obtained information);
outputting the determined sensory attribute (sharing information)” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mental process grouping.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 2 and 13.
The Examiner notes that the claim 2 recitation of: wherein the mixture of oils comprises at least two different oils, at least three different oils, or at least four different oils does not carry patentable weight, because the limitation is contingent on there being an oil mixture instead of a single oil, and the oil itself is not part of the claimed system, which is comprised of only a processing device and communication interface.
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:
Claim 1: A system (110) for predicting sensory attributes of an oil or a mixture of oils for personal care, wherein the system (110) comprises at least one communication interface (112) for providing data and at least one processing device (114), wherein the processing device (114) is configured for: obtaining via the communication interface (112) at least one physico-chemical property of the oil or the mixture of oils identified by experimental measurement and at least one model relating one or more physico-chemical properties to one or more sensory attributes;
Claim 2: A system (110) for predicting sensory attributes of an oil or a mixture of oils for personal care, wherein the system (110) comprises at least one communication interface (112) for providing data and at least one processing device (114), wherein the processing device (114) is configured for: obtaining via the communication interface (112) at least one physico-chemical property of the oil or the mixture of oils identified by experimental measurement and at least one model relating one or more physico-chemical properties to one or more sensory attributes;
Claim 13: A computer implemented method for predicting sensory attributes or physico-chemical properties of an oil or a mixture of oils for personal care; obtaining at least one physico-chemical property of the oil or the mixture of oils identified by experimental measurement and at least one model relating one or more physico-chemical properties to one or more sensory attributes.
The additional element in the preamble of “A system/method for predicting sensory attributes of an oil or a mixture of oils for personal care” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Obtaining at least one physico-chemical property of the oil or the mixture of oils identified by experimental measurement and at least one model relating one or more physico-chemical properties to one or more sensory attributes represents a mere data gathering step and only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. A communication interface and processing device (generic processor/components) are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, as discussed in the previous office action, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 3-12, 14 and 15 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greenaway ("Psychorheology of skin cream", PhD Thesis, 1 July 2010 (2010-07-01), XP055575984, http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/13622/1/537650.pdf).
Regarding Claim 1, Greenway teaches a system (110) for predicting sensory attributes of an oil or a mixture of oils for personal care, wherein the system (110) comprises at least one communication interface (112) for providing data and at least one processing device (114) (Greenway p. 175, para. 3, Principal component analysis with varimax rotation (XLSTAT, Version 2007.6) was used to visualise the relationship between the physical parameters (measured by rheology, texture analysis and force plate analysis) and the sensory attributes (measured by QDA) for the model skin creams. The method is necessarily computer implemented with a way for the data to be communicated due to the use of software), wherein the processing device (114) is configured for:
obtaining via the communication interface (112) at least one physico-chemical property of the oil or the mixture of oils identified by experimental measurement (Greenway p. 32, 1.5.1, para. 3, In this research the TA.XT plus Texture Analyser (Stable-Micro-Systems) was used. A range of different probes and fixtures may be attached to this texture analyser for measuring a vast array of different materials including cosmetics, food products, adhesives and packaging. Types of texture analysis measurement include: compression, puncture and penetration, cutting and shearing, extrusion, tension, fracture and bending/snapping and adhesion (Stable-Micro-Systems, 2005). Also see p. 42, Fig. 1.5 PHYSICAL methods. Physical data must be collected for modeling/correlation) and at least one model relating one or more physico-chemical properties to one or more sensory attributes (Greenway p. 175, para. 1, The ultimate goal of this research was to be able to predict the sensory properties of a cream from its physical characteristics and to determine how much consumers would like the resulting cream. Principal component analysis (PCA) and predictive modelling were used to determine if this was possible.);
determining at least one sensory attribute of the oil or the mixture of oils based on the obtained physico-chemical properties and the model (Greenway p. 177, para. 1, The final model equations allow sensory properties of samples to be predicted when values for certain physical parameters are known.);
outputting, via the communication interface (112) the determined sensory attribute (Greenway p. 177, para. 1, Predicted values were plotted against actual values (mean scores obtained for the attributes through QDA by the trained panel). The results must be communicated in order to be plotted.).
Regarding Claim 3, Greenway further teaches wherein the determined sensory attribute comprises sensory attributes for each of the oils (Greenway p. 14, para. 1, For example if the cream was to be a night cream, then emollients with a higher degree of oiliness would be appropriate since the presence of a greasy residue on the skin over night is not a problem. Alternatively, hand creams for use during the day would be better suited to lighter oils (Salka, 1997; Shai et al., 2001) that result in a less greasy residue on the skin, which is more appropriate for carrying out daily tasks. The sensory attributes of the individual ingredients are inherent factors of the overall sensory attribute of the mixed product).
Regarding Claim 13, Greenway teaches a computer implemented method for predicting sensory attributes of an oil or a mixture of oils for personal care by using at least one system (110) according to claim 1 (Greenway p. 175, para. 3, Principal component analysis with varimax rotation (XLSTAT, Version 2007.6) was used to visualise the relationship between the physical parameters (measured by rheology, texture analysis and force plate analysis) and the sensory attributes (measured by QDA) for the model skin creams. The method is necessarily computer implemented with a way for the data to be communicated due to the use of software),wherein the method comprises
a) obtaining via the communication interface (112) at least one physico-chemical property of the oil or the mixture of oils identified by experimental measurement (Greenway p. 32, 1.5.1, para. 3, In this research the TA.XT plus Texture Analyser (Stable-Micro-Systems) was used. A range of different probes and fixtures may be attached to this texture analyser for measuring a vast array of different materials including cosmetics, food products, adhesives and packaging. Types of texture analysis measurement include: compression, puncture and penetration, cutting and shearing, extrusion, tension, fracture and bending/snapping and adhesion (Stable-Micro-Systems, 2005). Also see p. 42, Fig. 1.5 PHYSICAL methods. Physical data must be collected for modeling/correlation) and at least one model relating one or more physico-chemical properties to one or more sensory attributes by using the processing device (114) (Greenway p. 175, para. 1, The ultimate goal of this research was to be able to predict the sensory properties of a cream from its physical characteristics and to determine how much consumers would like the resulting cream. Principal component analysis (PCA) and predictive modelling were used to determine if this was possible.);
b) determining at least one sensory attribute of the oil or the mixture of oils based on the obtained physico-chemical properties and the model (Greenway p. 177, para. 1, The final model equations allow sensory properties of samples to be predicted when values for certain physical parameters are known.);
c) outputting via the communication interface (112) the determined sensory attribute or the determined physico-chemical property by using the processing device (114) (Greenway p. 177, para. 1, Predicted values were plotted against actual values (mean scores obtained for the attributes through QDA by the trained panel). The results must be communicated in order to be plotted.).
Regarding Claim 14, Greenway further teaches a computer program including computer-executable instructions for performing the method according to claim13 wherein the program is executed on a computer or computer network (Greenway p. 175, para. 3, Principal component analysis with varimax rotation (XLSTAT, Version 2007.6) was used to visualise the relationship between the physical parameters (measured by rheology, texture analysis and force plate analysis) and the sensory attributes (measured by QDA) for the model skin creams. The method is necessarily computer implemented with a way for the data to be communicated due to the use of software).
Regarding Claim 15, Greenway further teaches a method for producing a personal care product comprising using a determined sensory attribute or a determined physico- chemical property determined according to claim 13 (Greenway p. 13, Section 1.2.4, para. 2, Different emollients provide different skin feels and are therefore selected depending on the function. For example if the cream was to be a night cream, then emollients with a higher degree of oiliness would be appropriate since the presence of a greasy residue on the skin over night is not a problem. Alternatively, hand creams for use during the day would be better suited to lighter oils (Salka, 1997; Shai et al., 2001) that result in a less greasy residue on the skin, which is more appropriate for carrying out daily tasks. Different products are designed with different attributes in mind).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenaway (as stated above).
Regarding Claim 5, Greenway does not explicitly further teach wherein the processing device (114) is configured for obtaining via the communication interface (112) at least one unique identifier of the oil or mixture of oils, wherein the processing device (114) is configured for retrieving the physico-chemical properties for the oil and/or mixture of oils defined by the obtained unique identifier.
However, Greenway teaches that multiple products are evaluated (Greenway p. 90, Section 3.1.1, para. 1, The textural properties of the 40 model skin creams were rated by the trained panel for the following attributes: firmness, thickness, resistance, spreadability, stickiness, cooling, drying, dragging, slipperiness, final greasiness and absorption according to the measurement protocols given in Table 2.3, Chapter 2.3.2.3. Results were analysed as described in Chapter 2.3.2.8. ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Greenway to explicitly teach wherein the processing device (114) is configured for obtaining via the communication interface (112) at least one unique identifier of the oil and/or mixture of oils, wherein the processing device (114) is configured for retrieving the physico-chemical properties for the oil and/or mixture of oils defined by the obtained unique identifier, because each of the products has to have a unique identifier in order to properly record and retrieve respective properties.
Regarding Claim 6, Greenway further teaches wherein the processing device (114) is configured for determining the at least one sensory attribute for the oil or mixture of oils defined by the unique identifier based on the retrieved physico-chemical properties and the model (Greenway p. 177, para. 1, The final model equations allow sensory properties of samples to be predicted when values for certain physical parameters are known.), wherein the processing device (114) is configured for providing via the communication interface the at least one sensory attribute for the oil and/or mixture of oils defined by the obtained chemical formulation and/or the unique identifier (Greenway p. 177, para. 1, Predicted values were plotted against actual values (mean scores obtained for the attributes through QDA by the trained panel). The results must be communicated in order to be plotted.).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenway (as stated above) in view of Gilbert et al. ("Predicting sensory texture properties of cosmetic emulsions by physical measurements", CHEMOMETRICS AND INTELLIGENT LABORATORY SYSTEMS, vol. 124, 1 May 2013 (2013-05-01), pages 21-31, XP055069346, ISSN: 0169-7439, DOI: 10.1016/j.chemolab.2013.03.002), hereinafter “Gilbert”.
Regarding Claim 2, Greenway teaches a system (110) for predicting sensory attributes of an oil or a mixture of oils for personal care, wherein the system (110) comprises at least one communication interface (112) for providing data and at least one processing device (114) (Greenway p. 175, para. 3, Principal component analysis with varimax rotation (XLSTAT, Version 2007.6) was used to visualise the relationship between the physical parameters (measured by rheology, texture analysis and force plate analysis) and the sensory attributes (measured by QDA) for the model skin creams. The method is necessarily computer implemented with a way for the data to be communicated due to the use of software), wherein the processing device (114) is configured for:
obtaining via the communication interface (112) at least one physico-chemical property of the oil or the mixture of oils identified by experimental measurement (Greenway p. 32, 1.5.1, para. 3, In this research the TA.XT plus Texture Analyser (Stable-Micro-Systems) was used. A range of different probes and fixtures may be attached to this texture analyser for measuring a vast array of different materials including cosmetics, food products, adhesives and packaging. Types of texture analysis measurement include: compression, puncture and penetration, cutting and shearing, extrusion, tension, fracture and bending/snapping and adhesion (Stable-Micro-Systems, 2005). Also see p. 42, Fig. 1.5 PHYSICAL methods. Physical data must be collected for modeling/correlation) and at least one model relating one or more physico-chemical properties to one or more sensory attributes (Greenway p. 175, para. 1, The ultimate goal of this research was to be able to predict the sensory properties of a cream from its physical characteristics and to determine how much consumers would like the resulting cream. Principal component analysis (PCA) and predictive modelling were used to determine if this was possible.);
determining at least one sensory attribute of the oil or the mixture of oils based on the obtained physico-chemical properties and the model (Greenway p. 177, para. 1, The final model equations allow sensory properties of samples to be predicted when values for certain physical parameters are known.);
outputting via the communication interface (112) the determined sensory attribute (Greenway p. 177, para. 1, Predicted values were plotted against actual values (mean scores obtained for the attributes through QDA by the trained panel). The results must be communicated in order to be plotted.).
Greenway is not relied upon to further teach wherein the mixture of oils comprises at least two different oils, at least three different oils, or at least four different oils (Note this limitation is contingent on there being an oil mixture instead of a single oil, and the oil is not a positively recited element of the claimed system, and is therefore not given patentable weight).
Nonetheless, Gilbert teaches wherein the mixture of oils comprises at least two different oils, at least three different oils, or at least four different oils (Gilbert p. 22, Section 2.1. Eight O/W emulsions, as typical cosmetic creams, were prepared (composition given in Table 1), each only varying by the texturing agent added. Also see Table 1. Multiple ingredients are listed for the oil phase).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Greenway (as stated above) in view of Gilbert to explicitly teach wherein the mixture of oils comprises at least two different oils, at least three different oils, or at least four different oils, because creams and other cosmetic products can contain multiple oils.
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenway (as stated above) in view of Wilmott et al. (US 20020082745 A1), hereinafter “Wilmott”.
Regarding Claim 8, Greenway further teaches wherein the processing device (114) is configured for determining at least one sensory attribute based on the obtained physico-chemical property and the model (Greenway p. 177, para. 1, The final model equations allow sensory properties of samples to be predicted when values for certain physical parameters are known.).
Greenway is not relied upon to teach wherein the processing device (114) is configured for obtaining via the communication interface (112) (Wilmott [0052] Computer 92 has at least one user input 94 and a display device 96.) at least one target physico-chemical property, wherein the processing device (114) is configured for determining a target oil or a target ratio of a mixture of oils having the obtained target physico-chemical property based on the determined sensory attribute (Wilmott [0029] The factors which can be customized include, but are not limited those which effect the aesthetic quality of the product, the active ingredients or performance properties of the product, as well as other miscellaneous factors. Also see [0031] For example, the "density" of a cream, can range a from very light and a low residual (zero) to very emollient with a noticeable residual (1000).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Greenway (as stated above) in view of Wilmott to explicitly teach wherein the processing device (114) is configured for obtaining via the communication interface (112) at least one target physico-chemical property, wherein the processing device (114) is configured for determining a target oil or a target ratio of a mixture of oils having the obtained target physico-chemical property based on the determined sensory attribute, because consumers may want their products to have properties that they deem desirable, and different ingredients contribute to varying properties of a product.
Regarding Claim 9, Greenway (as stated above) is not relied upon to further teach wherein the processing device (114) is configured for determining a composition of a cosmetic product comprising the oil or mixture of oils based on the outputted sensory attribute.
Wilmott teaches wherein the processing device (114) is configured for determining a composition of a cosmetic product comprising the oil or mixture of oils based on the outputted sensory attribute (Wilmott [0033] Based on the properties and characteristics of the customized product specified by the user, and possibly the user's profile, an initial cosmetic formulation is selected. (Step 44). The formulation comprises a base composition to which one or more additives are added, such as active agents and adjuvants, the type of which and quantities are specified by the formulation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Greenway (as stated above) in view of Wilmott, to teach wherein the processing device (114) is configured for determining a composition of a cosmetic product comprising the oil or mixture of oils based on the outputted sensory attribute, to allow the creation of a product that meets specifically defined criteria (Wilmott [0033]).
Regarding Claim 10, Greenway in view of Wilmott (as stated above) further teaches wherein the cosmetic product is a personalized cosmetic product (Wilmott [0033] Based on the properties and characteristics of the customized product specified by the user, and possibly the user's profile, an initial cosmetic formulation is selected. (Step 44).).
Regarding Claim 11, Greenway (as stated above) is not relied upon to teach wherein the communication interface (112) comprises at least one web interface configured for providing at least one input box for inputting the at least one physico- chemical property of the oil or the mixture of oils.
Wilmott teaches wherein the communication interface (112) comprises at least one web interface configured for providing at least one input box for inputting the at least one physico- chemical property of the oil or the mixture of oils (Wilmott [0023] Turning to FIG. 1, there is shown an Internet-based system for providing customized cosmetic and pharmaceutical formulations on demand. The system 10 comprises a server 12 which can be accessed via a network 14, such as the Internet, by a plurality of clients 16.1 to 16.n. Preferably, the server is an HTTP server and is accessed via conventional Internet web-based technology. The clients 16 are computer terminals accessible by a user and may be customized devices, such as data entry kiosks, or general purpose devices, such as a personal computer. Also see [0052] Computer 92 has at least one user input 94).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Greenway (as stated above) in view of Wilmott, to teach wherein the communication interface (112) comprises at least one web interface configured for providing at least one input box for inputting the at least one physico- chemical property of the oil or the mixture of oils, to allow the user/client to specify their product preferences (0023]).
Regarding Claim 12, Greenway (as stated above) is not relied upon to teach wherein processing device (114) is configured for providing via the communication interface (112) a formulation of the mixture relating to the determined sensory attribute.
Wilmott teaches wherein processing device (114) is configured for providing via the communication interface (112) a formulation of the mixture relating to the determined sensory attribute (Wilmott [0033] Based on the properties and characteristics of the customized product specified by the user, and possibly the user's profile, an initial cosmetic formulation is selected. (Step 44).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Greenway (as stated above) in view of Wilmott, to teach wherein processing device (114) is configured for providing via the communication interface (112) a formulation of the mixture relating to the determined sensory attribute, to show the user/client the product tailored to their preferences (Wilmott [0055] the formulation is directed to a printer 22 or other output device, such as a display, so that a printout of the customized formulation is generated.) and allow further customization if necessary (0023]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN T BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-4194. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 7:00-4:30.
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, CATHERINE RASTOVSKI can be reached at (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 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.
/CHRISTIAN T BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
