DETAILED ACTION
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.
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.
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.
4. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to two of the four statutory classes, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “a step (105) of inputting at least one fragrant molecule digital identifier, said input defining a formula, associating, for at least one input fragrant molecule digital identifier, a value representative of a quantity of the associated fragrant molecule to be input, inputting at least one surfactant molecule digital identifier said identifier being representative of a surfactant molecule in which the input surfactant molecule is organized in micelles, and where the input fragrant molecule partitions between the aqueous phase and the micellar phase of the surfactant molecule, computing a relative concentration of at least one fragrant molecule of the formula in the water phase and in the micellar phase formed by the corresponding surfactant as a function of the input formula and the associated quantity for at least one fragrant molecule digital identifier and the input surfactant molecule digital identifier, retrieving a liquid-gas partition coefficient of at least one said fragrant molecule, computing a gas phase concentration of at least one said fragrant molecule as a function of the liquid-gas partition coefficient and of the relative concentration in the water phase of said fragrant molecule, estimating a psychophysical sensorial intensity for at least one fragrant molecule of the formula as a function of the computed gas phase concentration,” are abstract ideas, as they are directed to a combination of mental process and usage of mathematical concept, including the specific recitation of mathematical equation in the dependent claim 4. Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
The claims additionally recite “outputting, upon a computer interface, the psychophysical sensorial intensity for at least one fragrant molecule of the formula,” “computer interface,” and “computer device,” but said limitations are merely directed to insignificant post-solution activity and recitation of general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea. The claims do not improve the functioning of any computer and do not improve other technology. At most, the claims are an improvement in the abstract idea of estimating a psychophysical sensorial intensity and the relative concentration of at least one fragrant molecule of the formula. However, improved or new abstract idea are nonetheless an abstract idea and not eligible under the 101. In short, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, claims additionally recite “outputting, upon a computer interface, the psychophysical sensorial intensity for at least one fragrant molecule of the formula,” “computer interface,” and “computer device,” but said limitations are merely directed to insignificant post-solution activity and recitation of general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea, that are well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 10, 12 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1. The prior arts do not teach or suggest a combination, including a step (105) of inputting at least one fragrant molecule digital identifier, upon a computer interface, said input defining a formula, a step (106) of associating, for at least one input fragrant molecule digital identifier, a value representative of a quantity of the associated fragrant molecule to be input, a step (107) of inputting at least one surfactant molecule digital identifier, upon a computer interface, said identifier being representative of a surfactant molecule in which the input surfactant molecule is organized in micelles, and where the input fragrant molecule partitions between the aqueous phase and the micellar phase of the surfactant molecule, a step (110) of computing, by a computing device, a relative concentration of at least one fragrant molecule of the formula in the water phase and in the micellar phase formed by the corresponding surfactant as a function of the input formula and the associated quantity for at least one fragrant molecule digital identifier and the input surfactant molecule digital identifier, a step (115) of retrieving, by a computing device, a liquid-gas partition coefficient of at least one said fragrant molecule, a step (120) of computing, by a computing device, a gas phase concentration of at least one said fragrant molecule as a function of the liquid-gas partition coefficient and of the relative concentration in the water phase of said fragrant molecule, a step (125) of estimating, by a computing device, a psychophysical sensorial intensity for at least one fragrant molecule of the formula as a function of the computed gas phase concentration and a step (130) of outputting, upon a computer interface, the psychophysical sensorial intensity for at least one fragrant molecule of the formula.
The independent Claim 12 is an apparatus claim to Claim 1, and are allowed for the similar reason.
Regarding Claim 10. The prior arts do not teach or suggest a combination, including a step (205) of inputting at least one fragrant molecule digital identifier, upon a computer interface, said input defining a formula, a step (206) of inputting at least one surfactant molecule digital identifier, upon a computer interface, said identifier being representative of a surfactant molecule in which the input surfactant molecule is organized in micelles, and where the input formula partitions between the aqueous phase and the micellar phase of the surfactant molecule, a step (210) of defining, upon a computer interface, a value of target psychophysical sensorial intensity for at least one fragrant molecule of the formula, a step (215) of estimating, by a computing device, a gas phase concentration for at least one fragrant molecule of the formula as a function of the defined target psychophysical sensorial intensity, a step (220) of computing, by a computing device, a liquid-phase concentration of at least one said fragrant molecule as a function of the estimated gas phase concentration of said fragrant molecule, a step (225) of computing, by a computing device, a relative concentration of at least one fragrant molecule of the formula in the water phase and in the micellar phase formed by the corresponding surfactant as a function of the liquid-phase concentration computed and a step (230) of outputting, upon a computer interface, the relative concentration of at least one fragrant molecule of the formula.
The independent Claim 13 is an apparatus claim to Claim 10, and are allowed for the similar reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nishimura et al., JP 2004/210807, “method for manufacturing surfactant composition of high concentration….”
Dale et al., US-PGPUB 2021/0329913
Unger, US-PGPUB 2001/0051131
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857