DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
[2] This communication is in response to the amendment filed 12 January 2026. It is noted that this application benefits from Foreign Priority to European Patent Application Serial Nos. 22173564.0, 22181608.5, and 22182427.9, filed 16 May 2022, 28 June 2022, and 30 June 2022, respectively. Claims 2 and 3 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 4-5, and 15 have been amended. Claim 16 has been added.
Response to Remarks/Amendment
[3] Applicant's remarks filed 12 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The remarks will be addressed below in the order in which they appear in the noted response.
[i] In response to rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 (now claims 1 and 4-16 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 10 September 2025, Applicant provides the following remarks:
"…It is initially submitted that the current claim is directed to a method for training a machine
learning model to provide relative ranking of various ingredients in a composition relative to one another with respect to a determined perceived emotion or sensation…In this connection it is noted that in ex parte Desjardins (Desjardins), the USPTO Appeals Review Panel (ARP) held claims directed to training a machine learning model subject matter eligible under Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP prescribed analysis process…claim 1 and its dependent claims do not recite and are not directed to an abstract idea, but are instead rooted in solving a technological problem of the training of generative machine learning devices aimed at determining the psychophysical emotion or sensation reaction of a composition in a more reliable manner, such composition can be reliably be materialized…"
Applicant further remarks:
“…Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed features, which relate to, among other things,
"a trained gradient boosting decision tree device," as recited in the amended claim 1 cannot
reasonably be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the recitations of claim 1 are not reasonable performable in the human mind, at least because the human mind is not equipped and cannot reasonably train a trained gradient boosting decision tree device which is a specific type of machine learning device. Machine learning devices exist because the human mind is not equipped to reasonably process a high number of standardized computer data. Therefore, by definition the training of a machine learning device cannot be a mental process…”
In response, Examiner respectfully maintains that the claims as presented remain directed to ineligible subject matter. Under Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04):
The claim(s), as presented by amendment, remain directed to the abstract idea of receiving and analyzing perceived emotions or sensations observed in response to a flavor or fragrance and ranking or valuing the relative responses, which is reasonably considered to be method of limited to claimed ineligible steps/processes performable by Human Mental Processing (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions). In particular, the general subject matter to which the claims are directed illustrates a sequence of actions in which human emotions and perceptions or particular flavor or fragrance components are observed and evaluated, which is an ineligible inventive process limited to claimed human mental observations and evaluations.
With respect to Examiner’s maintained conclusion that the claimed invention is directed to ineligible processes performable by Human Mental Processing, representative claim 1 as presented by amendment recites limitations including:
“…a step of providing…a set of exemplar data, comprising: at least two flavor or fragrance physical composition digital identifiers formed by at least two fragrant or flavor physical ingredient digital representation identifiers and at least one emotion or sensation perception value for the at least two said fragrant or flavor ingredients, said emotion or sensation perception value being associated to at least one emotion or sensation perception digital identifier, said emotion or sensation perception digital identifier being representative of a category of emotion or sensation reaction, among a finite list of emotion or sensation reactions, of a human being to a materialized physical composition digital identifier, a step of operating the…device based upon the set of exemplar data to obtain a…model configured to determine for each one of said flavor or fragrance physical composition digital identifiers in said set of exemplar data a relative ranking among the flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifiers relative to at least one determined perceived emotion or sensation a step of inputting…at least two flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifiers, the resulting input corresponding to a physical composition digital identifier representative of a physical composition of physical flavor or fragrance ingredients, a step of operating… the trained…model upon the input physical composition digital identifier, a step or receiving from the trained…model at least one value representative of a relative ranking among the input flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifiers relative to at least one determined perceived emotion or sensation, a step of providing…for the input physical composition digital identifier, at least one value obtained during the step of operating…”
Respectfully, absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited “computer interface” or “computing device” operating the “gradient boosting decision tree device” or “neural network device”, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that observing human responses to compositions of flavors or fragrances and quantifying and recording the responses for the purposes of ranking flavors of fragrances with respect to emotional responses and/or perceptions are practicable/performable by employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101) or by utilizing a generic computing system as a tool to assist in the performance of the noted calculations and/or observations, determinations, or judgements (see at least MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recited “…gradient boosting decision tree device or to a neural network device…” and the “…trained gradient boosting decision tree model or a trained neural network model…” have been considered at each step of Examiner’s analysis but are determined to constitute generic computing structures executing generic computing functions as further analyzed under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B below.
Applicant remarks:
"…it is submitted that the limitation of obtaining a gradient boosting decision tree model or a trained neural network model, as claimed, provides the required practical application of the invention (Step 2A prong two) and improves artificial intelligence technology in Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision), the Appeals Review Panel (ARP) overall credited benefits to technological improvements of machine learning technology as disclosed in the patent application specification. Specifically, the ARP determined that the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of "catastrophic forgetting" encountered in continual learning systems…"
Applicant additionally remarks:
"…Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 is directed to "significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea. The Office Action alleged in its step two analysis that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception. It is first noted that in view of the above comments and the above Appeals Review Panel Decision in re Ex Parte Desjardins, the claim as a whole recites significantly more than just the limitations considered by the Examiner as organizing human activity (Step 2B), since it provides an improvement to the field of machine learning technologies… "
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to considerations under Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)):
As presented by amendment, additional technical elements of claim 1 that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject are limited to: “computer interface” and “computing device”, a “gradient boosting decision tree device” or “neural network device”, and “a trained gradient boosting decision tree model or a trained neural network model”.
As presented by amendment, claim 1 further includes/specifies that the providing of the physical composition digital identifiers and the emotion of sensation perception values is “…to a gradient boosting decision tree device or to a neural network device…”. The step of operating is directed to operating the “…gradient boosting decision tree device or to a neural network device…” to obtain a “…gradient boosting decision tree model or a trained neural network model…”. Claim 1 as amended further clarifies that the ranking value is received from the “…trained gradient boosting decision tree model or a trained neural network model…”.
While Applicant remarks that the claimed invention is directed to “training a machine
learning model to provide relative ranking of various ingredients in a composition relative to one another with respect to a determined perceived emotion or sensation”, Examiner respectfully submits that the step as current constructed are limited to inputting identifiers to a device, obtaining a model, providing inputs to the trained model, and receiving values from the model. While a trained model is obtained and a device is operated, considered in light of the supportive disclosure, the claimed steps do not include training of a machine learning model or operating a device of model beyond the mere provision of data (e.g., identifiers to the device and model) (See Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) below).
With respect to the identification of the “gradient boosting decision tree device” or “neural network device” and any potential machine learning processes, Examiner further notes the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) published in the Federal Register on 17 July 2024. In particular, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to Example 47, claim 2. Specifically, the instant recitations of “operating…a trained gradient boosting decision tree” and “operating…a neural network” are analogous to the training of an artificial neural network based on input data and receiving continuous training data of Examiner 47. Reasonably, the training data and feedback data are limited to mere data gathering and generating an output at a high level of generality and, by extension, are reasonably understood to constitute insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recited training process is limited to a recitation of the inputs and outputs to be applied to an undefined training process absent any technical specificity regarding actual training. Accordingly, the recited machine-learning processes and associated training are performable using generic ML training processes, but fail to specify any technical steps in obtaining the results other than to state that the model is trained.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., ingredients and identifiers are inputted and displayed, ingredients are ranking based on observed responses, values of flavor or fragrance ingredients are obtained etc.) as associated with a respective “interface” or “computing device”. Beyond the general statement that the “computing device”, “gradient boosting decision tree device”, and “neural network device” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions, the limitations provide no further clarification with respect to the functions performed by the recited technical elements in producing the claimed result. A recitation of “by a device” or “upon an interface”, absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it”. The identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., receiving inputs); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., ingredients, response data, and “instructions”); (3) displaying and inputting data on a generic computer display (e.g., flavor or fragrance identifiers and responses); and (4) performing mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., observing human responses to compositions of flavors or fragrances and quantifying and recording the responses) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 1 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of receiving and analyzing perceived emotions or sensations observed in response to a flavor or fragrance and ranking or valuing the relative responses using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The claimed receiving and analyzing perceived emotions or sensations observed in response to a flavor or fragrance and ranking or valuing the relative responses benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
With respect to consideration of evidence that the claimed invention presents significantly more than the abstract idea under Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05):
As presented by amendment, additional technical elements of claim 1 that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject are limited to: “computer interface” and “computing device”, a “gradient boosting decision tree device” or “neural network device”, and “a trained gradient boosting decision tree model or a trained neural network model”.
As presented by amendment, claim 1 further includes/specifies that the providing of the physical composition digital identifiers and the emotion of sensation perception values is “…to a gradient boosting decision tree device or to a neural network device…”. The step of operating is directed to operating the “…gradient boosting decision tree device or to a neural network device…” to obtain a “…gradient boosting decision tree model or a trained neural network model…”. Claim 1 as amended further clarifies that the ranking value is received from the “…trained gradient boosting decision tree model or a trained neural network model…”.
While Applicant remarks that the claimed invention is directed to “training a machine
learning model to provide relative ranking of various ingredients in a composition relative to one another with respect to a determined perceived emotion or sensation”, Examiner respectfully submits that the step as current constructed are limited to inputting identifiers to a device, obtaining a model, providing inputs to the trained model, and receiving values from the model. While a trained model is obtained and a device is operated, considered in light of the supportive disclosure, the claimed steps do not include training of a machine learning model or operating a device of model beyond the mere provision of data (e.g., identifiers to the device and model) (See Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) below).
While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., receiving inputs); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., ingredients, response data, and “instructions”); (3) displaying and inputting data on a generic computer display (e.g., flavor or fragrance identifiers and responses); and (4) performing mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., observing human responses to compositions of flavors or fragrances and quantifying and recording the responses).
The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of receiving and analyzing perceived emotions or sensations observed in response to a flavor or fragrance and ranking or valuing the relative responses. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., receiving and analyzing perceived emotions or sensations observed in response to a flavor or fragrance and ranking or valuing the relative responses, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of receiving and analyzing perceived emotions or sensations observed in response to a flavor or fragrance and ranking or valuing the relative responses benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
[ii] In response to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 (now claims 1 and 4-16 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 10 September 2025, Applicant remarks:
“…In the present patent application, the gradient boosting decision tree device is trained based
on which emotions are aroused for panelists for a sample composition…Once trained, the gradient boosting decision tree device is used to relatively rank the ingredients in a composition with regards to a target emotion or perception value. In other words, ranking the contribution of each of the ingredients with respect to the target emotion…in Zahn, the training set is independent of an emotion or sensation perception but rather just aims at comparing samples with regards to certain characterizations…The training set of Zahn is a relative ranking which, in the present patent application, is the output of the machine learning model…Moreover, Zahn does not disclose a relative ranking of the components within a sample with regards to their contribution to an emotional or sensory response…”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial matter, while Applicant remarks that the claimed invention is directed to “training a machine learning model to provide relative ranking of various ingredients in a composition relative to one another with respect to a determined perceived emotion or sensation”, Examiner respectfully submits that the step as current constructed are limited to inputting identifiers to a device, obtaining a model, providing inputs to the trained model, and receiving values from the model. While a trained model is obtained and a device is operated, considered in light of the supportive disclosure, the claimed steps do not include training of a machine learning model or operating a device of model beyond the mere provision of data (e.g., identifiers to the device and model) (See Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) below).
With respect to the claimed “operating” to train a machine learning model, Examiner notes the Specification; page(s) 16, line(s) 20-31, page(s) 17, line(s) 6-10, page(s) 29, line(s) 1-12. The noted passage describes manual and automatic input of digital identifiers and exemplar data to devices using keyboard, mouse, touchscreen input devices to convey information to the interface. The acts/functions of operating the device are limited to the input of requisite data and identifiers, inputting associations among identifiers and values, and receiving a trained model and/or outputs from the model. The claimed operating is reasonably limited to inputting/providing data to the device and receiving outputs from the trained model.
With respect to the applied teachings of Zahn, Examiner directs Applicant’s attention to Zahn et al.; paragraphs [0058]-[0060] [0068]-[0070] [0081]-[0083] [0087] and [0103]). In the noted passages, Zahn teaches training a neural network based on inputs including composition identifiers and attributes and sensory data associated with the inputs. Zahn further discloses using the trained neural network to provide outputs of comparative scoring, rating, or ranking or samples and sample components in terms of sensory response and predicted sensory response by panelists and model.
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.
[4] 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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
With respect to each of the below listed limitations as presented by amendment, the recitation of the phrase “means of” invokes treatment under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) based on the use of the word “means” associated with the recited functional language presented as linked to the recited means. In accordance with treatment under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification.
As presented by amendment, system claim(s) 15 include(s):
[i] “…a means of inputting, upon a computer interface, at least two flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifiers…” (Interpreted as limited by the associated structure, material, or acts provided by the Specification.; page(s) 11, line(s) 13-21, page(s) 29, line(s) 1-8; The means of inputting is understood to constitute the acts of manual and automatic input of digital identifiers using keyboard, mouse, touchscreen input devices).
[ii] “…a means of operating, by a computing device, instructions configured to associate, to the input a physical composition digital identifier, at least one value…” (Interpreted as limited by the associated structure, material, or acts provided by the Specification.; page(s) 16, line(s) 20-31, page(s) 17, line(s) 6-10, page(s) 29, line(s) 1-12; The means of providing is understood to constitute the acts of manual and automatic input of digital identifiers and exemplar data to devices using keyboard, mouse, touchscreen input devices to convey information to the interface. See further generally associating values with identifiers. See device generates trained model and/or output values based on inputs. The acts/functions performed are limited to the input of requisite data and identifiers, inputting associations among identifiers and values, and receiving a trained model and/or outputs from the model. The claimed operating is reasonably limited to inputting/providing data to the device and receiving outputs from the trained model).
[iii] “…a means of providing, upon a computer interface, for the input physical composition digital identifier, at least one value obtained during the step of operating…” (Interpreted as limited by the associated structure, material, or acts provided by the Specification.; page(s) 11, line(s) 13-21, page(s) 17, line(s) 5-9; The means of providing is understood to constitute the acts performed via input devices to enter identifiers and values manually and automatically using exemplary input devices to the interface including keyboard, mouse, touchscreen input devices).
With respect to each of the below listed limitations as presented by amendment, the recitation of the phrase “step of” invokes treatment under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) based on the use of the word “step” associated with the recited functional language presented as linked to the recited step. In accordance with treatment under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification.
As presented by amendment, method claim(s) 1 and 5-13 include:
[iv] “…a step of providing to a gradient boosting decision tree device or to a neural network device a set of exemplar data, comprising: at least two flavor or fragrance physical composition digital identifiers… and at least one emotion or sensation perception value for the at least two said fragrant or flavor ingredients …” (claim(s) 1) (Interpreted as limited by the associated structure, material, or acts provided by the Specification.; page(s) 11, line(s) 13-21, page(s) 17, line(s) 5-9; See at least acts performed via input devices to enter identifiers and values manually and automatically using exemplary input devices to the interface including keyboard, mouse, touchscreen input devices).
[v] “…a step of operating the gradient boosting decision tree device or the neural network device based upon the set of exemplar data to obtain a gradient boosting decision tree model or a trained neural network model…” (claim(s) 1) (Interpreted as limited by the associated structure, material, or acts provided by the Specification.; page(s) 16, line(s) 20-31, page(s) 17, line(s) 6-10, page(s) 29, line(s) 1-12; See at least acts of manual and automatic input of digital identifiers and exemplar data to devices using keyboard, mouse, touchscreen input devices to convey information to the interface. See further generally associating values with identifiers. See device generates trained model and/or output values based on inputs. The acts/functions performed are limited to the input of requisite data and identifiers, inputting associations among identifiers and values, and receiving a trained model and/or outputs from the model. The claimed operating is reasonably limited to inputting/providing data to the device and receiving outputs from the trained model).
[vi] “…a step of inputting, upon a computer interface, at least two flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifiers…” (claim(s) 1) (Interpreted as limited by the associated structure, material, or acts provided by the Specification.; page(s) 11, line(s) 13-21, page(s) 29, line(s) 1-8; See at least acts of manual and automatic input of digital identifiers using keyboard, mouse, touchscreen input devices).
[vii] “…a step of operating, by a computing device, the trained gradient boosting decision tree model of the trained neural network model upon the input physical composition digital identifier…” (claim(s) 1) (Interpreted as limited by the associated structure, material, or acts provided by the Specification.; page(s) 16, line(s) 20-31, page(s) 17, line(s) 6-10, page(s) 29, line(s) 1-12; See at least acts of manual and automatic input of digital identifiers and exemplar data to devices using keyboard, mouse, touchscreen input devices to convey information to the interface. See further generally associating values with identifiers. See device generates trained model and/or output values based on inputs. The acts/functions performed are limited to the input of requisite data and identifiers, inputting associations among identifiers and values, and receiving a trained model and/or outputs from the model. The claimed operating is reasonably limited to inputting/providing data to the device and receiving outputs from the trained model).
[viii] “…a step of receiving from the trained gradient boosting decision tree model or the trained neural network model at least one value…” (claim(s) 1) (Interpreted as limited by the associated structure, material, or acts provided by the Specification.; page(s) 16, line(s) 20-31, page(s) 17, line(s) 6-10, page(s) 29, line(s) 1-12; See at least acts of manual and automatic input of digital identifiers and exemplar data to devices using keyboard, mouse, touchscreen input devices to convey information to the interface and receiving associates values with identifiers. See device generates trained model and/or output values based on inputs, i.e., acts of receiving outputs/values).
[ix] “…a step of providing, upon a computer interface, for the input physical composition digital identifier, at least one value obtained during the step of operating…” (claim(s) 1) (Interpreted as limited by the associated structure, material, or acts provided by the Specification.; page(s) 11, line(s) 13-21, page(s) 17, line(s) 5-9; See at least providing performed via input devices to enter identifiers and values manually and automatically using exemplary input devices to the interface including keyboard, mouse, touchscreen input devices).
Claims 5, 10, and 13 further specify that the step of operating is associated with the additional steps of:
[x] “…a step of determining, by a computing device, a numerical value representative of an emotion or sensation reaction impact for at least one input flavor or fragrance ingredient …” (claim(s) 5) (Interpreted as limited by the associated structure, material, or acts provided by the Specification.; page(s) 16, line(s) 20-31, page(s) 17, line(s) 6-10, page(s) 29, line(s) 1-12; See at least acts of manual and automatic input of digital identifiers and exemplar data to devices using keyboard, mouse, touchscreen input devices to convey information to the interface and receiving associates values with identifiers. See device generates trained model and/or output values based on inputs, i.e., acts of receiving outputs/values).
[xi] “…a first step of associating, by a computing device, at least one olfactive or taste descriptor to at least one input flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifier and a second step of associating, by a computing device, at least one perceived emotion or sensation as a function of at least one olfactive or taste descriptor associated to at least one input flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifier…” (claim(s) 13) (Interpreted as limited by the associated structure, material, or acts provided by the Specification.; page(s) 16, line(s) 20-31, page(s) 17, line(s) 6-10, page(s) 29, line(s) 1-12; See at least manual and automatic input of digital identifiers and exemplar data to devices using keyboard, mouse, touchscreen input devices to convey information to the interface. See further generally associating values with identifiers. See device generates trained model and/or output values based on inputs. The acts/functions performed are limited to the input of requisite data and identifiers, inputting associations among identifiers and values, and receiving a trained model and/or outputs from the model. The claimed operating is reasonably limited to inputting/providing data to the device and receiving outputs from the trained model)
Claims 6-12 include additional steps of:
[xii] “…a step of providing at least one alternative flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifier…” (claim(s) 6-8) (Interpreted as limited by the associated structure, material, or acts provided by the Specification.; page(s) 11, line(s) 13-21, page(s) 17, line(s) 5-9; See at least providing performed via input devices to enter identifiers and values manually and automatically using exemplary input devices to the interface including keyboard, mouse, touchscreen input devices).
[x] “…a step of assembling a physical composition corresponding to the input physical composition digital identifier or of providing the input physical composition digital identifier to a system configured to assemble physical compositions…” (claim(s) 9) (Interpreted as limited by the associated structure, material, or acts provided by the Specification.; page(s) 24-26; See at least steps of optimizing ingredient compositions including ingredients and quantities/concentrations in a compound. Step of assembling compositions is interpreted to be limited to experimental combining ingredients in different ratios/quantities/concentrations and monitoring human responses).
[xv] “…a step of assembling a database associating for at least one group of at least two flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifiers, a value representative of a measured human emotion or sensation perception…” (claim(s) 10-11) (Interpreted as limited by the associated structure, material, or acts provided by the Specification.; page(s) 32-34; See at least storing and recording values in database)
[xvi] “…a step of exposure at least one human being to a physical composition of flavor or fragrance physical ingredients, a step of measuring the emotion or sensation perception of said at least one human being exposed to said physical composition and a step of recording, in a database, a value representative of the measured perceived emotion or sensation…” (claim(s) 11) (Interpreted as limited by the associated structure, material, or acts provided by the Specification.; page(s) 32, line(s) 1-20, page(s) 17, line(s) 25-31 page(s) 18, lines 1-25; See at least exposure of human subjects to composition and see numerical representation and categorization of responses by human panelists)
[xvii] “…a step of substituting an input flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifiers by a different and equivalent flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifiers…” (claim(s) 12) (Interpreted as limited by the associated structure, material, or acts provided by the Specification.; page(s) 11, line(s) 13-21, page(s) 29, line(s) 1-8; See at least manual and automatic input of digital identifiers using keyboard, mouse, touchscreen input devices)
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.
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.
[5] Claim 10 is 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. Claim limitation “…a step of determining, by a computing device, a set of instructions to be operated during the step of operating…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification indicates, generally, that the recited computing device executed instructions to operate the recited devices, the instructions disclosed appear to be limited to executable instructions to provide input data and identifiers to models and received determined or calculated values (Specification.; page(s) 16, line(s) 20-31, page(s) 17, line(s) 6-10, page(s) 29, line(s) 1-12; See at least manual and automatic input of digital identifiers and exemplar data to devices using keyboard, mouse, touchscreen input devices to convey information to the interface. See further generally associating values with identifiers. See device generates trained model and/or output values based on inputs. The acts/functions performed are limited to the input of requisite data and identifiers, inputting associations among identifiers and values, and receiving a trained model and/or outputs from the model. The claimed operating is reasonably limited to inputting/providing data to the device and receiving outputs from the trained model). There does not appear to be a specific instance in which the computing device selects or generates executable instructions to operate the recited devices.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (continued)
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.
[6] Claim 10 is 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 limitation “…a step of determining, by a computing device, a set of instructions to be operated during the step of operating…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification indicates, generally, that the recited computing device executed instructions to operate the recited devices, the instructions disclosed appear to be limited to executable instructions to provide input data and identifiers to models and received determined or calculated values (Specification.; page(s) 16, line(s) 20-31, page(s) 17, line(s) 6-10, page(s) 29, line(s) 1-12; See at least manual and automatic input of digital identifiers and exemplar data to devices using keyboard, mouse, touchscreen input devices to convey information to the interface. See further generally associating values with identifiers. See device generates trained model and/or output values based on inputs. The acts/functions performed are limited to the input of requisite data and identifiers, inputting associations among identifiers and values, and receiving a trained model and/or outputs from the model. The claimed operating is reasonably limited to inputting/providing data to the device and receiving outputs from the trained model). There does not appear to be a specific instance in which the computing device selects or generates executable instructions to operate the recited devices. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph because the acts performed with the claimed “a step of determining, by a computing device, a set of instructions to be operated during the step of operating” are unclear .
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
[7] Previous rejection(s) of claims 1-15 (now claims 1 and 4-16 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more has/have not been overcome by the amendments to the subject claims and is/are maintained. The statement of rejection below is reiterated as originally presented in the previous Office Action mailed 10 September 2025. The present amendments and remarks are addressed above under “Response to Remarks/Amendment”.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05) and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) published in the Federal Register, 17 July 2024. Claim(s) a and 4-16 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claims 1 and 15 are directed to methods (see interpretation of claim 15 applied above) and are considered be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process is subject to additional analysis as defined by the Courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, each of claims 1 and 15 are determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of receiving and analyzing perceived emotions or sensations observed in response to a flavor or fragrance and ranking or valuing the relative responses, which is reasonably considered to be method of limited to claimed ineligible steps/processes performable by Human Mental Processing (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions). In particular, the general subject matter to which the claims are directed illustrates a sequence of actions in which human emotions and perceptions or particular flavor or fragrance components are observed and evaluated, which is an ineligible inventive process limited to claimed human mental observations and evaluations.
The courts have previously identified subject matter limited to the implementation of steps/processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper to be ineligible abstract ideas (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Further, mental processes or concepts performed in the human mind including observation and evaluation are considered to be ineligible abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
With respect to functions/steps limited to processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper, representative claim 1 recites:
“…a step of inputting…at least two flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifiers, the resulting input corresponding to a physical composition digital identifier representative of a physical composition of physical flavor or fragrance ingredients, a step of …associate, to the input a physical composition digital identifier, at least one value representative of: a relative ranking among the input flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifiers relative to at least one determined perceived emotion or sensation, a value representative of the perception, for at least one input flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifier, for at least one determined perceived emotion or sensation, and/or a value representative of a class of flavor or fragrance ingredients in a classification of flavor or fragrance ingredients by perception of perceived emotion or sensation for at least one determined emotion or sensation perception and a step of providing…for the input physical composition digital identifier, at least one value obtained during the step of operating.…”
Respectfully, absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited “computer interface” or “computing device” operating instructions (claim 1) and/or the “gradient boosting decision tree device” or “neural network device” (claims 2 and 3 respectively), one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that observing human responses to compositions of flavors or fragrances and quantifying and recording the responses for the purposes of ranking flavors of fragrances with respect to emotional responses and/or perceptions are practicable/performable by employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101).
The technical elements identified in claim 1 are limited to: “computer interface” and “computing device”. Claims 2 and 3 additionally introduce a “gradient boosting decision tree device” or “neural network device” as engaged in a general manner in the performance of each of the recited observation and evaluations processes. With respect to these potential additional elements:
(1) The “computing device”, “gradient boosting decision tree device”, and “neural network device” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “computer interface” is identified as displaying information and receiving inputs.
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Additional elements of claim 1 that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject matter include: “computer interface” and “computing device”. Claims 2 and 3 additionally introduce a “gradient boosting decision tree device” or “neural network device”.
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
With respect to the identification of the “gradient boosting decision tree device” or “neural network device”, Examiner notes the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) published in the Federal Register on 17 July 2024. In particular, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to Example 47, claim 2. Specifically, the instant recitations of “operating…a trained gradient boosting decision tree” and “operating…a neural network” are analogous to the training of an artificial neural network based on input data and receiving continuous training data of Examiner 47. Reasonably, the training data and feedback data are limited to mere data gathering and generating an output at a high level of generality and, by extension, are reasonably understood to constitute insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recited training process is limited to a recitation of the inputs and outputs to be applied to an undefined training process absent any technical specificity regarding actual training. Accordingly, the recited machine-learning processes and associated training are Accordingly, the recited machine-learning processes and associated training are performable using generic ML training processes, but fail to specify any technical steps in obtaining the results other than to state that the model is trained/obtained.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., ingredients and identifiers are inputted and displayed, ingredients are ranking based on observed responses, values of flavor or fragrance ingredients are obtained etc.) as associated with a respective “interface” or “computing device”. Beyond the general statement that the “computing device”, “gradient boosting decision tree device”, and “neural network device” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions, the limitations provide no further clarification with respect to the functions performed by the recited technical elements in producing the claimed result. A recitation of “by a device” or “upon an interface”, absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it”. The identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., receiving inputs); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., ingredients, response data, and “instructions”); (3) displaying and inputting data on a generic computer display (e.g., flavor or fragrance identifiers and responses); and (4) performing mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., observing human responses to compositions of flavors or fragrances and quantifying and recording the responses) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 1 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of receiving and analyzing perceived emotions or sensations observed in response to a flavor or fragrance and ranking or valuing the relative responses using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The claimed receiving and analyzing perceived emotions or sensations observed in response to a flavor or fragrance and ranking or valuing the relative responses benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes pages 37 and 38 and Fig. 1. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
The claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures and associated functions/routines include:
(1) The “computing device”, “gradient boosting decision tree device”, and “neural network device” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “computer interface” is identified as displaying information and receiving inputs.
While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., receiving inputs); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., ingredients, response data, and “instructions”); (3) displaying and inputting data on a generic computer display (e.g., flavor or fragrance identifiers and responses); and (4) performing mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., observing human responses to compositions of flavors or fragrances and quantifying and recording the responses).
The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of receiving and analyzing perceived emotions or sensations observed in response to a flavor or fragrance and ranking or valuing the relative responses. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., receiving and analyzing perceived emotions or sensations observed in response to a flavor or fragrance and ranking or valuing the relative responses, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of receiving and analyzing perceived emotions or sensations observed in response to a flavor or fragrance and ranking or valuing the relative responses benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Independent claim 15 is directed to a second iteration of the inventive method (See interpretation of claim 15 above) and is rejected for substantially the same reasons, in that the generically recited computer components in the apparatus/system and computer readable media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
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.
[8] Claim(s) 1, 4-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahn et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0259363 hereinafter ‘Zahn’) in view of Palmer et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0154581 hereinafter ‘Palmer’).
With respect to (currently amended) claim 1, Zahn discloses a method of determination of an emotion or sensation perception in relation to an exposure to a flavor or fragrance ingredients, comprising: a step of inputting at least two flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifiers, the resulting input corresponding to a physical composition digital identifier representative of a physical composition of physical flavor or fragrance ingredients (Zahn et al.; paragraphs [0032] [0057] [0066] [0087]; See at least sample identifiers, component identifiers, and sample attributes as inputs to the sensory perception model. See further inputs for two or more samples/components to be compared for sensory responses), a step of operating, by a computing device, the trained gradient boosting decision tree model or the trained neural network model upon the input physical composition digital identifier, a step or receiving from the trained gradient boosting decision tree model or the trained neural network model at least one value representative of a relative ranking among the input flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifiers relative to at least one determined perceived emotion or sensation (Zahn et al.; paragraphs [0058]-[0060] [0068]-[0070] [0103]; See at least neural network trained to provide outputs of comparative scoring, rating, or ranking or samples and sample components in terms of sensory response and predicted sensory response by panelists and model) and a step of providing for the input physical composition digital identifier, at least one value obtained during the step of operating (Zahn et al.; paragraphs [0069] [0076] [0099] [0105]; See at least panelist and model predictions of sensory response and comparative scoring, ratings, and rankings of components and samples. See further data collected using at least component and sample identifiers).
Zahn further discloses the newly added limitations of claim 1 including “…a step of providing to a gradient boosting decision tree device or to a neural network device a set of exemplar data (Zahn et al.; paragraphs [0058]-[0060] [0062]; See at least input training data provided to neural network machine learning training process/device) comprising: at least two flavor or fragrance physical composition digital identifiers formed by at least two fragrant or flavor physical ingredient digital representation identifiers (Zahn et al.; paragraphs [0066]-[0067] [0087]; See at least composition identifiers based on sample attributes including mixed ingredients) and at least one emotion or sensation perception value for the at least two said fragrant or flavor ingredients, said emotion or sensation perception value being associated to at least one emotion or sensation perception digital identifier (Zahn et al.; paragraphs [0068]-[0069] [0082] [0087]; See at least sensory outputs and composition identifiers associated with emotion or sensory identifiers), said emotion or sensation perception digital identifier being representative of a category of emotion or sensation reaction, among a finite list of emotion or sensation reactions, of a human being to a materialized physical composition digital identifier (Zahn et al.; paragraphs [0067]-[0068] [0087]; See at least sensory categorizations).
With respect to the inputting of identifiers and response data via an interface, while Zahn discloses inputs to the models and to record response data including sensory responses, scoring, ranking, and identifiers, Zahn fail to expressly state that an interface is used to receive the inputs.
However, as evidenced by Palmer, it is well-known in the art to record sensory responses to flavor or fragrance stimuli using specialized graphic user interfaces to received and display identification and response information (Palmer et al.; paragraphs [0036]-[0038] [0051]; See at least display of sample identification and inputs including sample associated sensory responses).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the model input mechanisms of Zahn by further including well-known data and response input user interfaces to record sample associated response information as taught by Palmer. The instant invention is directed to a system and method of evaluating human responses to flavor and fragrance stimuli. As Zahn disclose the use of computerized inputs to response-predictive models in the context of a system and method for evaluating human responses to flavor and fragrance stimuli and Palmer similarly discloses the utility specialized user interface data entry in the context of a system and method for evaluating human responses to flavor and fragrance stimuli, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by combining prior art elements accordingly to known methods to yield the predictable results of ensuring simplified and accurate entry of stimuli associated data thereby improving the usability of data entry for response program subjects and analysts.
Claims 2 and 3 are cancelled.
With respect to claim 4, Zahn discloses a method in which the exemplar data further comprises, associated with at least one physical composition digital identifier, at least one digital identifier representative of: a gender of the human being exposed to the materialized physical composition, a country of origin of the human being exposed to the materialized physical composition (Zahn et al.; paragraphs [0062]; See at least panelist attributes including demographics), a type of use of the materialized physical composition, a composition chemical base used to support the materialized physical composition, and/or a dosage for at least one physical ingredient flavor or fragrance physical ingredient represented by the corresponding digital representation identifier (Zahn et al.; paragraphs [0051]-[0052] [0085]-[0087]; See at least sample composition and mixture including components).
With respect to claim 5, Zahn discloses a method comprising, downstream of the step of operating, a step of determining, by a computing device, a numerical value representative of an emotion or sensation reaction impact for at least one input flavor or fragrance ingredient and a step of providing, upon a computer interface, the determined reaction impact numerical value (Zahn et al.; paragraphs [0067]-[0068] [0099]-[0103]; See at least lists of sensory outputs including flavor and smell attributes and characterizations. See further scaling or scoring of relative intensities of sensory responses to components also in terms of flavor and smell attributes).
With respect to claim 6, Zahn discloses a method comprising, downstream of the step of determining a numerical value representative of an emotion or sensation reaction impact, a step of providing at least one alternative flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifier for at least one input flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifier to form an alternative physical composition digital identifier as function of the value representative of an emotion or sensation reaction impact associated to said input and alternative flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifier (Zahn et al.; paragraphs [0067]-[0068] [0099]-[0103]; See at least mixture modeling and lists of sensory outputs including flavor and smell attributes and characterizations. See further scaling or scoring of relative intensities of sensory responses to components also in terms of flavor and smell attributes).
With respect to claim 7, Zahn discloses a method in which the step of providing at least one alternative flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifier is configured to further provide at least one value representative of a concentration of at least one said alternative flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifier (Zahn et al.; paragraphs [0069] [0076] [0099] [0105]; See at least panelist and model predictions of sensory response and comparative scoring, ratings, and rankings of components and samples. See further data collected using at least component and sample identifiers).
With respect to claim 8, Zahn discloses a method in which the step of providing at least one alternative flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifier is configured to further provide a minimum and/or a maximum value representative of a concentration of at least one said alternative flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifier (Zahn et al.; paragraphs [0051]-[0052] [0085]-[0087]; See at least sample composition including concentrations and mixture including components).
With respect to claim 9, Zahn discloses a method comprising a step of assembling a physical composition corresponding to the input physical composition digital identifier or of providing the input physical composition digital identifier to a system configured to assemble physical compositions (Zahn et al.; paragraphs [0051]-[0052] [0085]-[0087]; See at least sample composition and mixture including components).
With respect to claim 10, Zahn discloses a method comprising: a step of assembling a database associating for at least one group of at least two flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifiers, a value representative of a measured human emotion or sensation perception and a step of determining, by a computing device, a set of instructions to be operated during the step of operating (Zahn et al.; paragraphs [0043]-[0044] [0087]; See at least database storing sensory functions associated with component identifiers and sample attributes).
With respect to claim 11, Zahn discloses a method in which the step of assembling a database comprises: a step of exposure at least one human being to a physical composition of flavor or fragrance physical ingredients, a step of measuring the emotion or sensation perception of said at least one human being exposed to said physical composition and a step of recording, in a database, a value representative of the measured perceived emotion or sensation in association to the group of flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifiers representative of the physical ingredients used to for the composition used during the step of exposure (Zahn et al.; paragraphs [0069] [0076] [0087] [0099] [0105]; See at least panelist and model predictions of sensory response and comparative scoring, ratings, and rankings of components and samples. See further data collected using at least component and sample identifiers. See further sensory data stored in database).
With respect to claim 12, Zahn discloses a method which comprises a step of substituting an input flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifiers by a different and equivalent flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifiers, said equivalence being defined in a database of equivalent flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifiers (Zahn et al.; paragraphs [0067]-[0068] [0099]-[0103]; See at least mixture modeling and lists of sensory outputs including flavor and smell attributes and characterizations. See further scaling or scoring of relative intensities of sensory responses to components also in terms of flavor and smell attributes).
With respect to claim 13, Zahn discloses a method in which the step of operating comprises: a first step of associating, by a computing device, at least one olfactive or taste descriptor to at least one input flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifier and a second step of associating, by a computing device, at least one perceived emotion or sensation as a function of at least one olfactive or taste descriptor associated to at least one input flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifier (Zahn et al.; paragraphs [0051]-[0052] [0085]-[0087]; See at least sample composition and mixture including components. See further database).
With respect to claim 14, Zahn discloses a method in which at least one emotion or sensation perception is representative of a perception of health or hygiene benefit associated to the exposition to the physical composition (Zahn et al.; paragraphs [0067]-[0068] [0099]-[0103]; See at least descriptors and scaling or scoring of relative intensities of sensory responses to components also in terms of flavor and smell attributes. At least a perception of “salty” can be considered a health-related descriptor).
With respect to newly added claim 16, Zahn discloses a method in which the step of operating is configured to associate, to the input a physical composition digital identifier, at least one value representative of a value representative of the perception, for at least one input flavor or fragrance physical ingredient digital representation identifier, for at least one determined perceived emotion or sensation, and/or a value representative of a class of flavor or fragrance ingredients in a classification of flavor or fragrance ingredients by perception of perceived emotion or sensation for at least one determined emotion or sensation perception (Zahn et al.; paragraphs [0068]-[0070] [0103]; See at least comparative scoring, rating, or ranking or samples and sample components in terms of sensory response and predicted sensory response by panelists and model).
Claims 15, as presented by amendment, substantially repeat subject matter addressed above with respect to amended claim 1 as directed to the enabling system. With respect to these elements, Zahn discloses enabling the disclosed method employing analogous systems and executable instructions (See at least Zahn paragraphs [0051][0059]). Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected under the applied teachings, conclusions obviousness, and rationale to modify as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
[9] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cited NON-PATENT Literature:
Patnaik et al., Information Olfactation: Harnessing Scent to Convey Data, 2019-01-01, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (Volume: 25, Issue: 1, 2019, Page(s): 726-736): Relevant Teachings: Patnaik discloses a system/method that provides for the generation of olfactory feedback. The publication establishes that least generation of output visualizations in the form of 2D and 3D graphs of olfactory-driven emotive response is common practice in the art.
Cited PATENT Literature:
Gaeta et al., FRAGRANCE FOR IMPROVING HAPPINESS STATE AND METHOD OF ASSESSING, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0197221, paragraphs [0127]-[0130]: Relevant Teachings: Gaeta discloses a system/method that includes steps/functions to incrementally adjust fragrance compositions to illicit a target emotion or mood from a human subject.
Meyer Rojas et al., ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE BASED CLASSIFICATION FOR TASTE AND SMELL FROM NATURAL LANGUAGE DESCRIPTIONS, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0414327, paragraphs [0034]-[0039]: Relevant Teachings: Meyer Rojas discloses a system/method that includes steps/functions utilizing machine learning models to generate fragrance descriptors from natural language descriptions of a smell or taste.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Beth V Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights