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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the blank rectangular boxes in Figure 7 should be provided with descriptive text labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract appears to be in the format of a claim. Applicant is reminded that a properly formatted abstract should be a single paragraph in a generally narrative form. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the predetermined adjusted concentration" in on line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitations “one additional physical solubilizer digital identifier” on line 2 of the claim. The limitation suggests there was a previous recitation of another physical solubilizer digital identifier, however the claims do not recite any other physical solubilizer digital identifier.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “one additional physical solvent digital identifier” on line 2 of the claim. The limitation suggests there was a previous recitation of another physical solvent digital identifier, however the claims do not recite any other physical solvent digital identifier.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 1 is directed to a method, which is a process and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites a step of calculating for at least one input physical perfuming ingredient digital identifier, a value representative of the total solubility of the corresponding physical perfuming ingredient in an aqueous environment comprising micelles of at least one physical surfactant molecule corresponding to at least one selected physical surfactant molecule digital identifier, wherein the aqueous environment, at least one said selected physical surfactant, and the composition define a mixture, a step of computing for at least one input physical perfuming ingredient digital identifier in the composition and for at least one selected physical surfactant molecule digital identifier in the mixture, a value representative of the hydrophilic lipophilic difference of said mixture, a step of determining for at least one input physical perfuming ingredient digital identifier, a value representative of the composition solubility in the aqueous environment, as a function of a total solubility calculated and of a hydrophilic lipophilic difference computed. Each of these claim limitations recite mathematical operations and the claim limitations fall into the mathematical concepts grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection 1).
The additional elements are a step of inputting, upon a computer interface, at least one physical perfuming ingredient digital identifier, said physical perfuming ingredient digital identifier being representative of a physical perfuming ingredient, the resulting input being representative of a composition of the represented physical perfuming ingredients, a step of selecting, upon a computer interface, at least one physical surfactant molecule digital identifier, said surfactant molecule digital identifier being representative of a physical surfactant molecule, a computing system, and a step of providing, upon a computer interface, at least one determined composition solubility.
Per step 2A, prong 2, The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The inputting step and the selecting step describe data collection in conjunction with the abstract idea. The providing step each describe insignificant post solution activity. All three steps are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The computer interface and the computer system describe generic computer components which amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). When considered in combination, the additional do not provide for anything further.
Per step 2B, claim [ 8 ] does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons. Further, the additional elements for collecting data and providing the output on a computer interface describe activity that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
Claims 2-10 and 12 depend from claim 1 and recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 2-10 and 12 do not recite any additional elements. Since there are no recited additional elements, claims 2-10 and 12 are not integrated into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites a further additional element for a step of assembling the composition. The claim limitation for assembling the composition is not more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). When considered in combination with the other additional elements nothing further is provided. Therefore claim 11 is not integrated into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13 recites limitations that include an abstract idea and additional elements similar to those found in claim 1. Therefore claim 13 is rejected for the same reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication 2022/0415450 to Nguyen teaches estimating solubility.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights