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 .
Status of Claims
The claim set received 23 May 2023 has been entered into the application.
Claims 1, 3-4, 9, 11, and 16-17 are objected to.
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Priority
This Application claims benefit to European Patent Application EP 22189544.4 filed 09 August 2022 and European Patent Application EP 22189544.4 filed EP 222174988.0 filed 24 May 2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent application EP 22189544.4 filed EP 222174988.0 filed 24 May 2022.
However, it is noted a certified copy of European Patent Application EP 22189544.4 filed 09 August 2022 has been not filed.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 23 May 2023. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The Specification received 23 May 2023 has been entered into the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 16-17 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1, 11, and 16-17 preamble recites “Physical composition digital representation sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness perception prediction method…”. The claimed steps should be amended to recite “Physical composition digital representation OF sweetness, bitterness, etc.”. Appropriate correction is required to address the grammatical correctness of the claimed step.
Claims 1 step of inputting, claim 11 step of determining, claim 16 means of defining, claim 17 means of determining, and claims 3-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1, 3-4, 11, and 16-17 recite “said input defining a physical composition digital representation”. The claimed steps should be amended to recite “said input defines a physical composition digital representation”. Appropriate correction is required to address the grammatical correctness of the claimed step.
Claims 1 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 16 step of calculating recites “…concentration defined…”. The claimed steps should be amended to recite “defined concentration”. Appropriate correction is required to address the grammatical correctness of the claimed step.
Claims 1 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 a step providing and 16 means of providing recite “representative of the perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness”. The claimed steps should be amended to recite “representative of the perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness, or saltiness”. Here, for example, using a comma “…sourness, or saltiness…” addresses the grammatical correctness of the claimed step.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 recites “a step of initialization, upon a computer interface, of physical flavoring ingredient…a step of acquisition”. The claimed steps should be amended to recite “a step of initializing, upon a computer interface, the physical flavoring ingredient…a step of …”. Appropriate correction is required to address the grammatical correctness of the claimed step.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites “which comprises a step of physical ingredients interaction parameter values database construction”. The claim should be amended to recite “which comprises a step of constructing a physical ingredients interaction parameter values database,…”. Appropriate correction is required to address the grammatical correctness of the claimed step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 16-17 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.
Rejection under 112(a) in view of considerations under 112(f)
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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Here, under Prong I (A) of the 112(f) three-prong analysis, claims 16-17 recite the nuance term/generic placeholder “means”.
Next, under Prong II (B) of the 112(f) analysis, the generic means place holders recites functional language, “means of inputting”, “means of defining”, “means of calculating”, “means of providing” of claim 16, and “means of setting”, “means of determining”, and “means of providing” of claim 17, such that it is clear to as what element in the claims is set forth, at least in part, by the function “means/generic placeholder” performs.
However, and under Prong III (C) of the 112(f) analysis, the means/generic placeholders of claim 16-17 are not supported by sufficient definite structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function.
Therefore, under Prong III(C), claimed limitations are interpreted under 112(f).
Here, the specification [pages 30-32] discloses a computer system and a block diagram that represents what the means can be. However, the claims do not describe as to what is performing the function of the “means” as claimed. For example, although the specification discloses algorithms and computer structure can act as a “means” [Spec pages 31-38], it does not describe what “structural” means is utilized (i.e., software/computer modules or a computer processor) to carry out the entire claimed function.
As such, it is recommended to amend the claims to clarify what the “means” is referring. For example, are the “means” constructed of software/algorithms, physical computer processing units, or other computer hardware/components. It is further recommended to amend the claims to be drawn to a system comprising a processor with instructions for performing the recited function.
35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 15-17 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.
Indefiniteness
Claim 1 step of calculating step recites “the perceivable sweetness, bitterness, ….” [lines 2]. Here, there is lack of antecedent basis support. It is not clear what ‘the perceivable” flavors are referring to because these flavors are inherently perceivable so it is not clear what ‘the perceivable sweetness, lingering… “ is referring to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(e). It is recommended to amend the claims to provide antecedent basis for the claimed limitations.
Claim 1 calculating step recites “the input physical composition digital representation.” [lines 3-4]. Claim 1 step of inputting recites “inputting at least one physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifier”. Next, claim 1 step of inputting recites “said input defining a physical composition digital representation.” Then, claim 1 step of calculating recites “a value representative of the perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness of the input physical composition digital representation”. Here, no antecedent basis is provided for the whole input of a physical composition digital representation. As such, it is not clear because there is not an inputting step of said input physical composition digital representation as claim 1 merely recites “a step of inputting at least one physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifier”. Thus, it is not clear which “input defining a physical composition digital representation” the claimed step is referring to since antecedent basis was not provided.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(e). It is recommended to amend the claims to provide antecedent basis for the claimed limitations.
Claim 1 step of calculating step recites “…the physical composition corresponding to the composition digital representation” [lines 5-6]. Here, there is no antecedent basis for the limitation. It is not clear which/what “physical composition corresponding to the composition digital representation the physical composition corresponding to the composition digital representation is referring to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(e). It is recommended to amend the claims to provide antecedent basis for the claimed limitations.
Claims 2-10 and 15 are rejected because they fail to provide limitations to overcome the deficiencies of the base claim(s).
Claim 3 recites “…coefficients being used during the step of calculating.…”. This is step attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process of using the coefficients in the steps of calculation. Here, claim 3 does not recite any steps for using the coefficients during the step of calculating . See MPEP 2173.05(q). Furthermore, the step recites “a step of computing … coefficients.” Therefore, it is not clear what it means that the coefficients are used during the sept of computing the coefficients. Claim 6 recites the same limitation and has the same issue of indefiniteness.
Rejection under 112(b) in view of considerations under 112(f)
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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Here, under Prong I (A) of the 112(f) three-prong analysis, claims 16-17 recites the nuance term/generic placeholder “means”.
Next, under Prong II (B) of the 112(f) analysis, the generic means place holders recites functional language, “means of inputting”, “means of defining”, “means of calculating”, “means of providing” of claim 16, and “means of setting”, “means of determining”, and “means of providing” of claim 17, such that it is clear to as what element in the claims is set forth, at least in part, by the function “means/generic placeholder” performs.
However, and under Prong III (C) of the 112(f) analysis, the means/generic placeholders of claim 16-17 are not supported by sufficient definite structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function.
Therefore, under Prong III(C), claimed limitations are interpreted under 112(f).
Here, the specification [pages 30-32] discloses a computer system and a block diagram that represents what the means can be. However, the claims do not provide as to what is performing the function of the “means” as claimed. For example, it is not clear if the means is software/computer modules or if the means is a computer processor performing the claimed method.
Furthermore, the corresponding structure would not simply be a general-purpose computer by itself but a computer specially programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.
Under consideration set forth under 112(f), it is therefore unclear what structure corresponds to the claimed “means”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not know what is needed to be a means for carrying out the claimed function. Thus, there is insufficient structure claimed so that one of ordinary skill in the art would know what the means for performing each function is.
Here, it is recommended to amend the claim to clarify what the “means” is referring. For example, are the means constructed of software/algorithms, physical computer processing units, or other computer hardware/components. It is further recommended to amend the claim to be drawn to a system comprising a processor with instructions for performing the recited function.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step I - Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition
Claims 1-10 and 15 are drawn to a method, so a process.
Claims 11-14 are drawn to a method, so a process.
Claims 16-17 are drawn to systems per se and therefore reads on a signal.
A transitory signal such as a carrier wave, or a program, per se, is not a statutory category of invention, as set forth in In re Nuijten (84 USPQ2d 1495 (2007)). Here, the systems of claims 16-17 do not have a physical or tangible form, but are drawn to systems per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations. Additionally, there is no machine recited in the claims (e.g., no processor, computer, apparatus, device).
The applicant may overcome the rejection by 1) amendment of the claims to be limited to physical forms of computer readable storage media described in the specification or 2) by amending the claimed subject matter to be limited to “non-transitory” computer readable media, see the notice regarding Computer Readable Media (1351 OG 212 (23 February 2010)).
Therefore, claims 16-17 does not recite a statutory category of invention and should be rejected under Step 1 of the 101 analyses.
Step 2A Prong I - Identification of an Abstract Idea
Claim 1 is drawn to a method while claim 16 is drawn to a system. However, the claims 1 and 16 recite similar language and are therefore examined similarly. Additionally, claim 11 is drawn to a method while claim 17 is drawn to a system. However, the claims 11 and 17 recite similar language and are therefore also examined similarly. For compact prosecution, claims 16-17 are examined below.
Claims 1 and 16 recite:
a step of defining, upon a computer interface, for at least one physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifier, a concentration of said physical flavoring ingredient in the physical composition digital representation
This step can be performed in the human mind by observing and evaluating information (i.e., ingredient digital representation identifier ingredient) to define a digital ingredient concentration of said physical flavoring ingredient and is therefore an abstract idea.
a step of calculating, by a computing system, as a function of at least one concentration defined, a value representative of the perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness of the input physical composition digital representation, said calculated value being representative of the physico-chemical activation of taste receptors by the physical composition corresponding to the composition digital representation
This step can be performed in the human mind by organizing information (i.e., value representative of the physico-chemical activation of taste receptors by the physical composition corresponding to the composition digital) to calculate a value representative of the perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness of the input physical composition digital representation and is therefore an abstract idea. This is encompasses performing calculations (i.e., a value) using mathematical functions which reads on abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(1-3).
Claims 2-10 are further drawn to limitations that describe the abstract ideas of claim 1 and are therefore also abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites a step for “constructing a database”.
This step encompasses organizing information (i.e., physical flavoring ingredient interaction impact values) for construct a database (i.e., table, chart, spreadsheet) and is therefore an abstract idea. This step encompasses mathematically organizing data to construct a database based on quantitative data (i.e., a value, coefficients, identifiers) which reads on abstract ideas. This encompasses rearranging data to construct a database which does not read on construct a physical tangible object since data is an abstract concept.
Claims 11 and 17 recites:
a step of setting, upon a computer interface, a value representative of a desired perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness, minimum perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness or maximum perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness of a physical composition digital representation to be produced
This step can be performed in the human mind organizing data (i.e., a value) to set a minimum perceivable or maximum perceivable and is therefore an abstract idea.
a step of determining, by a computing system, at least one physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifier, upon a computer interface, said physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifier being representative of a physical flavoring ingredient, said input defining a physical composition digital representation,
This step can be performed in the human mind by observing and evaluating information to determine one physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifier and is therefore an abstract idea.
said physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifier being selected as a function of a value representative of the perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness associated to at least one physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifier, and the perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness set
This step can be performed in the human mind by selecting data as a function of a value representative of the perceivable sweetness physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifier and the perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness set and is therefore an abstract idea.
Claims 12-14 are further drawn to limitations that describe the abstract ideas of claim 11 and are therefore also abstract ideas.
Claims 4 and 13 recite “a step of setting a value”. These limitations read on observing and evaluating information for setting data (i.e., a value or threshold) to represent the concentration of physical ingredient and is therefore an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong II - Consideration of Practical Application
Here, in the instant case, claims 1, 11, and 16-17 are merely set forth methods of data analysis for providing data via a computer interface. As such, practicing the claims merely results in providing data. Such a result only produces and displays information and does not provide for a practical application in the physical-realm of physical things and acts, i.e., the claims do not utilize the data generated by the judicial exception to affect any type of change. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A)(iv).
Claim 15 recites “which comprises a step of assembling the physical composition represented by the physical composition digital representation.” The assembling step of claim 15 is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how assembling the physical composition represented by the physical composition digital representation is performed. The assembling step is described at a high level such that it amounts to using any assembling methods. Thus, these limitations only recite the outcomes for “assembling the physical composition represented by the physical composition digital representation” without any details about how assembling is performed for assembling the physical composition represented by the physical composition digital representation which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Update (AI) [Example 47 Claim 2] and MPEP 2106.05(f).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not meet any of the following criteria:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B: Consideration of Additional Elements and Significantly More
The claimed method also recites "additional elements" that are not limitations drawn to an abstract idea.
The recited additional element of data inputting of claims 1, 11, and 16-17 does not add significantly more than the recited judicial exception because inputting data that is subsequently analyzed by the abstract idea is deemed a routine and conventional extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The recited additional element of displaying data using a computer interface of claims 1, 3-4 11 and means providing the data of claims 16-17 does not add significantly more than the recited judicial exception because displaying data is deemed a routine and conventional extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g).
The recited additional element using computer process, components and equipment of claims 1-17 does not add significantly more than the recited judicial exception because using computers to processes, store, and evaluate abstract ideas is merely tangential to the claimed method and is deemed routine and conventional. See MPEP 2105.06(d)(II) and 2106.05(g).
The recited additional element of data gathering by data acquisition of claim 3 does not add significantly more than the recited judicial exception because acquiring data that is subsequently analyzed by the abstract idea is deemed a routine and conventional extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element of assembling the physical compositions of claim 15 does not add significantly more than the recited judicial exception because assembling chemical structures from predicted chemical structures is deemed well-known and conventional.
The recited additional element of data outputting by generating and producing data of claim 3 does not add significantly more than the recited judicial exception because data output that is subsequently analyzed by the abstract idea is deemed a routine and conventional extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
In conclusion, and when viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea recited in the instantly presented claims into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7-9, 11-12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz et al. (Nucleic acids research, 2021-07, Vol.49 (W1), p.W679-W684) in view of Malavolta et al. (European food research & technology, 2022-09, Vol.248 (9), p.2215-2235).
Claim 1 is drawn to a method while claim 16 is drawn to a system. However, the claims 1 and 16 recite similar language and are therefore examined similarly. Additionally, claim 11 is drawn to a method while claim 17 is drawn to a system. However, the claims 11 and 17 recite similar language and are therefore also examined similarly.
Claim(s): 1 and 16
Claim 1 is drawn to a method while claim 16 is drawn to a system. However, the claims 1 and 16 recite similar language and are therefore examined similarly.
Claim 1 recites a step of inputting at least one physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifier, upon a computer interface, said physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifier being representative of a physical flavoring ingredient, said input defining a physical composition digital representation,
Claim 1 recites a step of defining, upon a computer interface, for at least one physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifier, a concentration of said physical flavoring ingredient in the physical composition digital representation,
Claim 1 recites a step of calculating, by a computing system, as a function of at least one concentration defined, a value representative of the perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness of the input physical composition digital representation, said calculated value being representative of the physico-chemical activation of taste receptors by the physical composition corresponding to the composition digital representation,
Claim 1 recites a step of providing, upon a computer interface, the calculated value representative of the perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness.
Fritz et al. (Fritz) teaches VirtualTaste a web server with interface for predicting organoleptic properties of chemical compounds [title]. Fritz teaches that VirtualTaste uses sweet data, bitter data, sour data, and bitter receptor data which represent different molecules [page W681]. Fritz teaches inputting data for prediction [page W681]. Fritz illustrates the model using the compounds, Denatonium (i.e., bitter compound), as input, and selecting bitter, sweet, and sour taste profile [page W681], as in claim 1 a step of inputting at least one physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifier, upon a computer interface, said physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifier being representative of a physical flavoring ingredient, said input defining a physical composition digital representation,
Fritz teaches using the SMILES data for Denatonium (i.e., one physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifier), as in claim 1 a step of defining, upon a computer interface, for at least one physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifier,
Fritz teaches using VirtualTase which is a computer software program which requires a user interface for inputting data and outputting prediction results. Fritz teaches the target prediction provides a prediction of molecule to a receptor (i.e., Htas2rb) and provides a predicted value and probability (i.e., the calculated value representative of the perceivable taste) [page W681], as in claim 1 a step of providing, upon a computer interface, the calculated value representative of the perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness.
Fritz does not teach:
Fritz does not teach claim 1 a concentration of said physical flavoring ingredient in the physical composition digital representation.
Fritz does not teach claim 1 a step of calculating, by a computing system, as a function of at least one concentration defined, a value representative of the perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness of the input physical composition digital representation, said calculated value being representative of the physico-chemical activation of taste receptors by the physical composition corresponding to the composition digital representation.
Fritz does not teach claim 2 and 8-9.
Malavolta
Malavolta teaches umami prediction [page 2227 left col], as in claim 1 umami.
Malavolta teaches using data from SweetenersDB which has its sweetener assigned sweetness value, indicated as logS. Malavolta teaches this value is the logarithm of the ratio between the concentrations of the considered compound and sucrose (i.e., a concentration of said physical flavoring ingredient in the physical composition digital representation) [page 2218 left col sweetenersDB]. Malavolta also teaches a method analyzing bitter using concentration threshold for bitter recognition threshold is 0.1 mM, below this concentration, the molecules were considered “very bitter” (VB), whereas above this value “not very bitter” (NVB) [Maalavolta page 2226 right col data prep and model construction], as is claim 1 a concentration of said physical flavoring ingredient in the physical composition digital representation.
Malavolta teaches analyzing using SuperSweet database contains dataset include physiochemical properties [page 2218 left col SuperSweet]. Malavolta teaches using data from SweetenersDB which has its sweeteners assigned sweetness value, logS. Malavolta teaches this value is the logarithm of the ratio between the concentrations of the considered compound and sucrose [page 2218 left col sweetenersDB]. Malavolta teaches the bitter receptor data set contain 356 ligands that interact with TAS2Rs receptor extracted from BitterDB [page 2229], as in claim 1 recites a step of calculating, by a computing system, as a function of at least one concentration defined, a value representative of the perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness of the input physical composition digital representation, said calculated value being representative of the physico-chemical activation of taste receptors by the physical composition corresponding to the composition digital representation. Here, although Malavolta does not teach calcualting, but because Malavolta teaches the SweetenerDB utilizes sweetness values for the compounds in the database, it is obvious and inherent that the values were calculated for the compounds in the database.
Dependent claims(s): 2 and 8-9
Malavolta teaches using data from SweetenersDB which has its sweetener assigned sweetness value, indicated as logS. Malavolta teaches this value is the logarithm of the ratio between the concentrations of the considered compound and sucrose [page 2218 left col sweetenersDB]. Malavolta teaches using a support vector machine (SVM) [page 227 right col], as in claim 2. Here, although Malavolta does not directly teach a nth order polynomial function as a function of at least one defined concentration of physical flavoring ingredient in the physical composition digital representation, the SVM of Malavolta inherently encompasses using polynomial functions which reads on claim 2.
Malavolta teaches using data from SweetenersDB which has its sweetener assigned sweetness value, indicated as logS. Malavolta teaches this value is the logarithm of the ratio between the concentrations of the considered compound and sucrose [page 2218 left col sweetenersDB]. Malavolta teaches using SMILES data was collected for 316 sweetener compounds for sweet predictions [page 2220], as in claim 8. Here, although Malavolta does not directly teach a step of calculating a prediction, it is obvious and inherent Malavolta teaches calcualting because the machine learning models used in Malavolta performs these calculations.
Malavolta teaches using BitterX program that implements two different models, i.e., the bitterant verification model, which allows the identification of a bitter compound, and the TAS2R recognition model, which predicts the possible human bitter taste receptors, among the 25 known TAS2Rs and teaches using BitterX database (i.e., constructed database) [page 2222 right col BitterX]. Malavolta all the 260 non-redundant experimentally verified bitterant–TAS2R interactions were considered, while just 260 bitterant–TAS2R couples (i.e., least two physical ingredients digital identifiers) were selected as negatives to balance the dataset [page 2222 left col BitterX], as in claim 9.
Claims(s): 11 and 17
Claim 11 recites physical composition digital representation sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness optimization method.
Claim 11 recites a step of setting, upon a computer interface, a value representative of a desired perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness, minimum perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness or maximum perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness of a physical composition digital representation to be produced,
Claim 11 recites a step of determining, by a computing system, at least one physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifier, upon a computer interface, said physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifier being representative of a physical flavoring ingredient, said input defining a physical composition digital representation, said physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifier being selected as a function of a value representative of the perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness associated to at least one physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifier and the perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness set and
Claim 11 recites a step of providing, upon a computer interface, the determined physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifiers.
Fritz teaches using the SMILES data for Denatonium (i.e., one physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifier) [page W681]. Fritz teaches the target prediction provides a prediction of molecule to a receptor (i.e., Htas2rb) and provides a predicted value and probability (i.e., the calculated value representative of the perceivable taste) [page W681]. Fritz teaches VirtualTaste a web server with interface for predicting organoleptic properties of chemical compounds [title]. Fritz teaches that VirtualTaste uses sweet data, bitter data, sour data, and bitter receptor data which represent different molecules [page W681]. Fritz teaches inputting data for prediction [page W681]. Fritz illustrates the model using the compounds, Denatonium (i.e., bitter compound), as input, and selecting bitter, sweet, and sour taste profile [page W681], Fritz teaches using multiple dataset sets regarding sour, sweet, bitter [page W681], as in claim 11 a step of determining, by a computing system, at least one physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifier, upon a computer interface, said physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifier being representative of a physical flavoring ingredient, said input defining a physical composition digital representation, said physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifier being selected as a function of a value representative of the perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness associated to at least one physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifier and the perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness set.
Fritz teaches using VirtualTaste which is a computer software program that requires a user interface for inputting data and outputting prediction results. Fritz teaches the target prediction provides a prediction of molecule to a receptor (i.e., Htas2rb) and provides a predicted value and probability (i.e., the calculated value representative of the perceivable taste) [page W681], as in claim 11 a step of providing, upon a computer interface, the determined physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifiers.
Does not teach:
Fritz does not teach claim 11 physical composition digital representation sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness optimization method.
Fritz does not teach claim 11 a step of setting, upon a computer interface, a value representative of a desired perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness, minimum perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness or maximum perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness of a physical composition digital representation to be produced.
Fritz does not teach claim 12.
Malavolta
Malavolta teaches models were used to prevent over fitting [page 2224 top of left col]. Malavolta teaches using Genetic Algorithm to refine and optimize the score to the so-called optimized dipeptide propensity score (opti-DPS) [page 2225], as in claim 11 physical composition digital representation sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness optimization method.
Malavolta teaches using data from SweetenersDB which has its sweetener assigned sweetness value, logS. Malavolta teaches this value is the logarithm of the ratio between the concentrations of the considered compound and sucrose (i.e., physical flavoring ingredient digital representation identifier being selected as a function of a value representative of the perceivable) [page 2218 left col sweetenersDB]. Malavolta also teaches a method analyzing bitter using concentration threshold for bitter recognition threshold is 0.1 mM, below this concentration, the molecules were considered “very bitter” (VB) (i.e., maximum perceivable), whereas above this value “not very bitter” (NVB) (i.e., minimum perceivable) [Malavolta page 2226 right col data prep and model construction], as in claim 11 a step of setting, upon a computer interface, a value representative of a desired perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness, minimum perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness or maximum perceivable sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness of a physical composition digital representation to be produced.
Dependent claim(s): 12
Malavolta teaches individual amino acid propensity score was again extracted (i.e., secondary attribute [Spec page 29 lines19-20]) by statistical methods enabling the final discrimination between bitter and non-bitter peptides employing a weighted sum with opti-DPS [page 2225 left col iBitter-SCM]. Malavolta teaches that Sweet Predictor developed an AD using a threshold on the Jaccard–Tanimoto average distance between the query molecule and the compounds in the dataset. BitterPredict AD, known as Bitter Domain, includes molecules with molecular weight MW ≤ 700 and hydrophobicity − 3 ≤ AlogP ≤ 7. Malavolta teaches all used datasets were previously filtered using this domain to ensure the reliability of the prediction [page 2231 left col]. Malavolta teaches a query molecule is considered inside the applicability domain, if its median Euclidean distance from similar compounds in the training set is below a selected threshold [page 2231 left col], as in claim 12.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fritz in view of Malavolta because Malavolta teaches methods for analyzing taste perception sense (i.e., sweetness/licorice, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness) compounds and associating tasted compound with an receptor [Malavolta, page 2222 right col BitterX]. Furthermore, and similar to the VirtualTaste of Fritz, Malavolta also teaches utilizing VirtualTaste platform. Here, Malavolta performs different methods using different taste sensory databases (i.e., sweetness/licorice, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness) for predicting whether the compounds exhibit sensatory properties, for examples using iUmami-SCM model [Malavolta, page 2228left col iUmami-SCM]. Malavolta also teaches that sweeteners are assigned a sweetness value (logS) [Malavolta, page 2218 right col SweetenersDB]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the VirtualTaste models of Fritz with the umami models and assigned a sweetness value (logS) of Malavolta, for example, because Malavolta teaches a combination of different computational models (i.e., taste sensory models: sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness) which could be coded to construct a single or modular system for analyzing: sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness characteristics, individually or as a whole, for predicting taste perception. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success combining Fritz in view of Malavolta because Malavolta teaches that VirtualTaste, at the time, was the only tool to predict three taste sensations (sweet, bitter, and sour) and the only one able to predict the sour taste (VirtualSour) [Malavolta page 2232 left col]. Therefore, combining/coding the models of Fritz and Malavolta, into a singular or modular system, would yield a predictable taste perception sensory data analysis method using digital representations of taste molecules for predicting whether the taste sensory molecules exhibit sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz in view of Malavolta, as applied to claims 1, 2, 8-9, 11-12, and 16-17, and in further in view of Putter (Int’l Patent Pub No.: WO 2013/079187, Patent Pub Date.: 06 June 2013).
Fritz in view of Malavolta teach claims 1, 2, 8-9, 11-12, and 16-17.
Fritz in view of Malavolta teach a system and methods physical composition digital representation sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness perception prediction, and physical composition digital representation sweetness, bitterness, umami, licorice, lingering, sourness or saltiness optimization
Fritz in view of Malavolta do not teach claim 15
Dependent claims(s): 15
Putter discloses method for making a composition of the invention [Putter page 65 line 15 and page 202], as in claim 15.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fritz in view of Malavolta, and in further view of Putter because Putter discloses methods for analyzing sweetness molecules (e.g., licorice [Putter page 224]). Putter also discloses methods for making taste sensory molecule composition such as sweetener composition [Putter, page 65-66]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that although Putter does not directly disclose data analysis steps, Putter does disclose the data is collected on paper which could subsequently be inputted and recorded into electronic spreadsheets or tables for subsequent electronic analysis. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to search out sweetness databases that encompass data related to the molecular formula/compounds of sweeteners of Putter such that the sweetener data can be inputted into the system of Fritz and models of Malavolta for determining if a molecule is associated with sweet, sour, salty, sour, umami, and/or bitter characteristics. As such, one of ordinary skill in the would be motivated to combine the systems of Fritz and the models Malavolta for performing data analysis on taste sensory molecule (i.e., licorice [Putter]) for determining if it is associated with sweet, sour, salty, sour, umami, lingering (i.e., aftertaste) and/or bitter characteristics and utilizing the making taste sensory compositions (i.e., sweeteners) methods of Putter to assemble the composition of said molecules. Therefore, combining data analysis methods of Fritz in view of Malavolta with the methods of making taste sweetener compositions of Putters would yield a predicable taste sensory perception prediction method that can be utilized for predicting taste sensory compounds and making the compounds because although Putter does not disclose data analysis method, Putter does disclose chemical names of some sweeteners (i.e., anisic aldehyde, licorice) which can be located in public databases such that the chemical formulas/properties can be inputted into the system of Fritz and Malavolta for taste sensory associated prediction and subsequently made or assembled.
Conclusion
Claims 1-17 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
Finality
This Office action is a Non-Final action. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C PULLIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8696. The examiner can normally be reached 0730-1700 M-F.
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, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached at (571) 272-9047. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/Anna Skibinsky/
Primary Examiner, AU 1635
Prosecution Insights