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 .
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.
Claim 25 recites “the agonists”, “the reagent”, and “the products”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 62 and 64 recite “the computer platform”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12 recites “the detecting”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/ patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/ patents/process/file/efs/guidance/ eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18/331,110 (reference application) in view of Adler et al. (US 20030054448).
The reference claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18/331,110 recite all of the limitations recited in instant claim 1, except that the test comprising a plurality of agonists.
Adler et al. discloses a plurality of standard compounds (agonists) tested against a plurality of T1Rs, or fragments or variants thereof, to ascertain the extent to which the T1Rs each interact with each standard compound [0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include that the test comprising a plurality of agonists in order to generate a receptor stimulation profile for each standard compound (agonist), as taught by Adler et al. [0025].
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10 of co-pending Application No. 18/331,110 in view of Adler et al.
The reference claims 10 of co-pending Application No. 18/331,110 recite all of the limitations recited in instant claim 19, except using “physical test” instead of “actual test”. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the recite the same elements and concepts, albeit with slightly different wording. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an “actual test” in order to generate a receptor stimulation profile for each standard compound (agonist), as taught by Adler et al. [0025].
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18/454,598 (reference application) in view of Adler et al. (US 20030054448).
The reference claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18/454,598 recite all of the limitations recited in instant claim 1, except that the test comprising a plurality of agonists.
Adler et al. discloses a plurality of standard compounds (agonists) tested against a plurality of T1Rs, or fragments or variants thereof, to ascertain the extent to which the T1Rs each interact with each standard compound [0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include that the test comprising a plurality of agonists in order to generate a receptor stimulation profile for each standard compound (agonist), as taught by Adler et al. [0025].
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18 of co-pending Application No. 18/454,598 in view of Adler et al.
The reference claims 18 of co-pending Application No. 18/454,598 recite all of the limitations recited in instant claim 19, except the method steps performed for predicting cannabis preferences. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the recite the same elements and concepts, albeit with slightly different wording. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include predicting cannabis preferences since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18/506,015 (reference application) in view of Adler et al. (US 20030054448).
The reference claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18/506,015 recite all of the limitations recited in instant claim 1, except that the test comprising a plurality of agonists.
Adler et al. discloses a plurality of standard compounds (agonists) tested against a plurality of T1Rs, or fragments or variants thereof, to ascertain the extent to which the T1Rs each interact with each standard compound [0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include that the test comprising a plurality of agonists in order to generate a receptor stimulation profile for each standard compound (agonist), as taught by Adler et al. [0025].
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19 of co-pending Application No. 18/506,015 in view of Adler et al.
The reference claims 19 of co-pending Application No. 18/506,015 recite all of the limitations recited in instant claim 19, except the method steps performed for predicting distilled spirit preferences. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the recite the same elements and concepts, albeit with slightly different wording. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include predicting distilled spirit preferences since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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, 2, 19, 20, 25, 61, and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (a judicial exception without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1, 2, 19, 20, 25, 61, and 62 each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 19 recite a method.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 1, taken as representative, recites the abstract idea of predicting wine preferences of a subject This idea is described by the following steps:
determining phenotypic expression of T2Rs and/or T1Rs, wherein the determining is from a test comprising a plurality of agonists administered to detect the functionality ofT2Rs and/or TIRs; obtaining taste preference information from the subject; determining the subject's taste preference scores for one or more wines administered to the subject; predicting wine preferences for the subject.
Claim 19 recites equivalent limitations.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite obtaining taste preference information and predicting wine preferences for a subject, i.e., commercial interactions.
Additionally, the above recited limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ides, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind. The BRI of these limitations includes a human mentally, or by use of pen and paper, collecting information, analyzing information, and determining scores to predict wine preferences.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 1 and 19 recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 19 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1 and 19 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea identified at step 2A—Prong One, without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims identified at step 2A—Prong Two.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. These do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above.
Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and upon approval of a Terminal Disclaimer to overcome the double patenting rejection above.
Claims 2, 20 and 61 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 12, 25 and 62 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C.112, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 64 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, set forth in this Office action
Claims 12, 14-17, 59, 60 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 1
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of: determining phenotypic expression of T2Rs and/or T1Rs, wherein the determining is from a test comprising a plurality of agonists administered to detect the functionality ofT2Rs and/or TIRs; obtaining taste preference information from the subject; determining the subject's taste preference scores for one or more wines administered to the subject; predicting wine preferences for the subject.
Regarding claim 19
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of: determining phenotypic expression of T2Rs and/or T1 Rs, wherein the determining is from an actual test administered to detect the functionality of T2Rs and/or T1Rs; determining the subject's taste preference scores for one or more wines administered to the subject; predicting wine preferences for the subject.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2018031498 to Andrews et al. discloses genetic profiling methods for prediction of taste and scent preferences and gustative and olfactive product selection. The invention is based on the discovery of SNPs that can be used to determine gustative and/or olfactive products taste and/or scent preferences of individuals. Genetic profiling of an individual to identify the alleles present at these SNPs is used in combination with specific questioning about personal characteristics and taste and/or scent preferences in creating a taste and/or scent profile for an individual. The methods of the invention can be used for selecting and providing gustative and/or olfactive products to a consumer that have a high probability of meeting the individual's taste and/or scent preferences. In some embodiments, the present invention provides a method for predicting taste and/or scent preferences of a subject, the method comprising: a) providing a biological sample comprising DNA from the subject; b) genotyping a plurality of SNPs in the sample, wherein the plurality of SNPs comprises one or more SNPs identified as useful for identifying taste and/or scent preference; c) obtaining taste and/or scent preference information from the subject; and d) determining the subject's taste and/or scent preference scores for one or more food or beverage product, thereby predicting taste and/or scent preferences for the subject for a gustative or olfactive product. In some embodiments, the food or beverage product is selected from the group consisting of wine, liquor, beer, and coffee. In certain embodiments, the liquor is selected from the group consisting of gin, scotch whiskey, rum, and vodka.
US 20210374182 to Neumann discloses a system for determining user taste changes using plurality of biological extraction data and artificial intelligence. In non-limiting illustrative examples, a taste index 116 may be a function of a user's expression level of a variety of taste-sensing genes that produce taste-sensing proteins in the tongue, for instance, T2Rs, T1Rs, ENaC, GLUT4, and SGLT1, and a database value that links the protein level from these genes to their functionality in the tongue. A “taste profile,” as described in this disclosure, refers to a user's chemosensory ability as it relates to one or more elements of data of sensing a variety of flavors, such as sweet, sour, salty, bitter, savory (umami), fatty, alkaline, acidic, metallic, and water-like; user preference for texture.
US 20080287310 to Drayna et al. discloses human sweet and umami taste receptor variants. The methods for analyzing (e.g., haplotyping) one or more T1R gene(s) in an individual are also useful in the design of trials of candidate compounds for influencing perception of taste, particularly sweet or umami taste, that are predicted to be associated with T1R activity. Also disclosed are T1R methods for determining haplotype frequencies in each of several populations, including for instance Europeans, East Asians, and Africans. This information can be used to design foods and beverages for different worldwide markets, in at least two ways. First, in food and beverage research and development, population-specific haplotype distribution information will allow the selection of panels of taste sensors in a rational and efficient manner. Knowledge of the genetic underpinnings in individual taste preferences in target populations will provide powerful predictive in formation for food and beverage palatability in different populations.
US 20030054448 to Adler et al. discloses T1R taste receptors. A method is provided wherein a plurality of standard compounds are tested against a plurality of T1Rs, or fragments or variants thereof, to ascertain the extent to which the T1Rs each interact with each standard compound, thereby generating a receptor stimulation profile for each standard compound. The compounds tested as modulators of a T1R family member can be any small chemical compound, or a biological entity, such as a protein, sugar, nucleic acid or lipid. The invention also preferably provides methods for representing the perception of taste and/or for predicting the perception of taste in a mammal, including in a human.
“AIMS Genetics, 6(4), 88-97” discloses that some of the peoples have the capacity to taste some chemical substance such as phenylthiocarbamide (PTC) while others cannot be based on the dietary hazards and food preferences. There are many factors that affect the bitter taste such as food, age, sex, and different diseases. The mechanism of food bitter taste and genotype of TAS2R38 until now not well understood due to that the proof of relation between bitter taste sensitivity and food is harmful. There are many different diseases can impact the influence of taste such as neoplasm and lifestyle such as consumption of alcohol along with the use of medication, head trauma, upper tract infections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILA AIRAPETIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6:00 pm.
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, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. 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.
/MILA AIRAPETIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights