DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's response to restriction requirement filed on 22 June 2026. Currently, claims 11-16, 18-21 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group II, claims 11-16, 18-21, without traverse of in the reply filed on 6/22/26 is acknowledged.
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 11-16, 18-21 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (a method). Claims 11-16, 18-21 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 significantly more. Claims 11 recites the abstract idea of identifying a fragrance ingredient and/or a combination of fragrance ingredients that elicit an emotional and/or cognitive response in a subject by identifying in a plurality of fragrance datasets a frequent fragrance ingredient concentration and/or frequent co-occurring fragrance ingredient concentrations, wherein each of the plurality of fragrance datasets comprises an emotional and/or cognitive response elicited in a subject from an exposure to a fragrance and a concentration for each of one or more fragrance ingredients comprised in the fragrance and determining one or more association rules based on the frequent fragrance ingredient concentration and/or the frequent co-occurring fragrance ingredient concentrations, wherein each association rule corresponds to a fragrance ingredient concentration or combination of fragrance ingredient concentrations that elicits the emotional and/or cognitive response. The claims are directed to a type of determining emotional and cognitive responses of a subject to fragrances. Under prong 1 of Step 2A, these claims are considered abstract because the claims are certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions (including marketing activities) and managing personal behavior (including following rules). Applicant’s claims are organizing human activity including commercial interactions such as marketing activities because the claims show the emotional or cognitive response is a type of human activity and is a type of consumer testing which is market research and the claims show managing personal behavior including following rules because the rules to determine the response is a type of following rules related to personal behavior. Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and any additional elements individually or in combination) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply 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 claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. These limitations at best are merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination are well understood, routine and conventional in the field. Dependent claims 12-16, 18-20 also do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself by further showing whereinwherein the plurality of fragrance datasets is produced by performing consumer testing or receiving consumer testing data and wherein the emotional and/or cognitive response elicited in the subject is determined using a declarative test and/or a physiological-based test and wherein the emotional and/or cognitive response elicited in the subject is determined using a declarative test and/or a physiological-based test and wherein the fragrance is a fragrance ingredient, an accord, a schema, or a fully formulated fragrance and wherein the frequent fragrance ingredient concentration and/or frequent co-occurring fragrance ingredient concentrations satisfy a minimum level of support of at least 5% and wherein each of the association rules satisfies a minimum level of lift of at least 1.1 and wherein the fragrance ingredient concentration and/or the combination of fragrance ingredient concentrations of the association rule is expressed as a concentration range and/or an average concentration for the fragrance ingredient or each of the fragrance ingredients in the combination, and wherein a lower bound and an upper bound of the concentration range are determined by identifying a lower most concentration and an upper most concentration of the fragrance ingredient or each of the fragrance ingredients in the combination that elicits the emotional and/or cognitive response and wherein the combination of fragrance ingredient concentrations of the association rule is expressed as a range of ratios of the fragrance ingredients in the combination and/or an average ratio of the fragrance ingredients in the combination, and wherein a lower bound and an upper bound of the ratio range are determined by identifying a lower most concentration and an upper most concentration of each of the fragrance ingredients in the combination that elicits the emotional and/or cognitive response and wherein each of the association rules is applicable to a global population and/or a demographic group. Dependent claim 21 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination such as wherein each of the association rules is stored in a database (as evidenced by Fig. 3 of applicant’s own specification) are well understood, routine and conventional in the field.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11, 13-14, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruka et al. (JP-2021096743) (hereinafter Haruka) (citation 1 from the 6/4/24 IDS).
Claim 11:
Haruka, as shown, discloses the following limitations of claim 11:
A method for identifying a fragrance ingredient and/or a combination of fragrance ingredients that elicit an emotional and/or cognitive response in a subject (see para [0005]-[0006], [0024]-[0025], showing a scent generation system that determines a sensibility effect and para[ 0030], showing examples of emotional effects that are mapped to the effect), comprising: (a) identifying in a plurality of fragrance datasets a frequent fragrance ingredient concentration and/or frequent co-occurring fragrance ingredient concentrations, wherein each of the plurality of fragrance datasets comprises an emotional and/or cognitive response elicited in a subject from an exposure to a fragrance and a concentration for each of one or more fragrance ingredients comprised in the fragrance (see para [0030]-[0035], showing determination of mood and emotional effects for users for different scent patterns and combination of scents where it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that such patterns and combination can be considered ingredient concentration given broadest reasonable interpretation); and
(b) determining one or more association rules based on the frequent fragrance ingredient concentration and/or the frequent co-occurring fragrance ingredient concentrations, wherein each association rule corresponds to a fragrance ingredient concentration or combination of fragrance ingredient concentrations that elicits the emotional and/or cognitive response (see para [0030]-[0036], where it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the sensibility two dimensional map and the application of vectors to analyze and evaluate the data to create the sensitivity map can be considered a type of association rules given broadest reasonable interpretation).
Claim 13:
Further, Haruka discloses the following limitations:
wherein the emotional and/or cognitive response elicited in the subject is determined using a declarative test and/or a physiological-based test (see para [0039], showing the effects being measured can include behavioral effects and physiological effects)
Claim 14:
Further, Haruka discloses the following limitations:
wherein the fragrance is a fragrance ingredient, an accord, a schema, or a fully formulated fragrance (see para [0092], where a combined plurality of scents to achieve a desired result can be considered a fully formulated fragrance)
Claim 21:
Further, Haruka discloses the following limitations:
wherein each of the association rules is stored in a database (see para [0072], showing a database is used to store the sensitivity map)
Claims 12, 15-16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruka, as applied above, and further in view of Gafsou (US 2016/0091470 A1).
Claims 12, 15-16, 20:
Haruka does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of fragrance datasets is produced by performing consumer testing or receiving consumer testing data. In analogous art, Gafsou discloses the following limitations:
wherein the plurality of fragrance datasets is produced by performing consumer testing or receiving consumer testing data (see para [0024], "The final score of a scent can assist for example for setting a discrimination method for efficacy test of a home ambiance product, anti scent filter, or for setting a “test kit” for scent perception which may assist, as “first aid measurement” and simple non invasive home test in disease identifications (for example—in disease “A” the intensity sensitivity of a tested person and the olfactive families would have the same importunacy (e.g., weights) in final score, while for disease “B” they would have different importunacy or the final score would have a third descriptor in the equation)." and see para [0130], "The weights for each specific product/application/used may be determined by different factors which may include technical and non technical factors. For example, and without being limiting, a candle scent should be diffusive and intense. For some brands and/or users the intensity is the most important while for other the diffusiveness is more important, and the weights are set accordingly. As another non limiting example, predefined weighing formulation can be entered based on a market research or a survey.")
wherein the frequent fragrance ingredient concentration and/or frequent co-occurring fragrance ingredient concentrations satisfy a minimum level of support of at least 5% (see para [0065]-[0066], showing concentration can be adjusted to desired level. Examiner notes the specific amount of 5% is considered non-functional descriptive language and thus not given patentable weight. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1983))
wherein each of the association rules satisfies a minimum level of lift of at least 1.1 (see para [0041], showing importance weight can be user defined based on user’s needs or preferences. Examiner notes the specific number of 1.1 is considered non-functional descriptive language and thus not given patentable weight. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
wherein each of the association rules is applicable to a global population and/or a demographic group (see para [0015], showing construction of a global scent database and see para [0041], showing data obtained from panelist where it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that panelists can be divided based on different types of group data such as demographics to improve the market survey and research)
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Gafsou with Haruka because including data from customer testing enhances the commercial appeal for products (see Gafsou, para [0005]-[0010]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the method for scent perception measurements as taught by Gafsou in the aroma generating system of Haruka, 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.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruka, as applied above, and further in view of Shcherbakov et al. (US 2023/0253075 A1) (hereinafter Shcherbakov)
Claims 18-19:
Haruka does not explicitly disclose wherein the fragrance ingredient concentration and/or the combination of fragrance ingredient concentrations of the association rule is expressed as a concentration range and/or an average concentration for the fragrance ingredient or each of the fragrance ingredients in the combination. In analogous art, Shcherbakov discloses the following limitations:
wherein the fragrance ingredient concentration and/or the combination of fragrance ingredient concentrations of the association rule is expressed as a concentration range and/or an average concentration for the fragrance ingredient or each of the fragrance ingredients in the combination, and wherein a lower bound and an upper bound of the concentration range are determined by identifying a lower most concentration and an upper most concentration of the fragrance ingredient or each of the fragrance ingredients in the combination that elicits the emotional and/or cognitive response (see para [0119]-[0126], "According to a sixth aspect, the present invention aims at a fragrance composition spatial recognisability prediction method to prepare a fragrance composition comprising said fragrance ingredient or composition, comprising the steps of: electing, upon a computer interface, at least two ingredient digital identifiers forming a fragrance source, setting, upon a computer interface, a value representative of a relative quantity of at least one said ingredient identified by said digital identifier, selecting, upon a computer interface, a value representative of a distance within a range of at least two distinct values and up to a maximum downstream distance from the fragrance source at which at least one ingredient presents a minimum sensory intensity level corresponding to a predetermined minimum psychophysical intensity for each said ingredient, retrieving, from an electronic storage, a minimum spatial dilution value associated with the selected distance, determining, by a computing system, a value representative of gas phase concentration of at least one said ingredient corresponding to the spatial dilution value retrieved and computing, by a computing system, for the selected value of distance, at least one value representative of a sensory intensity level as a function of a dose-response curve linking gas phase concentration to sensory intensity level." where psychophysical intensity can be considered to show an emotive or cognitive response )
wherein the combination of fragrance ingredient concentrations of the association rule is expressed as a range of ratios of the fragrance ingredients in the combination and/or an average ratio of the fragrance ingredients in the combination, and wherein a lower bound and an upper bound of the ratio range are determined by identifying a lower most concentration and an upper most concentration of each of the fragrance ingredients in the combination that elicits the emotional and/or cognitive response (see para [0119]-[0126], "According to a sixth aspect, the present invention aims at a fragrance composition spatial recognisability prediction method to prepare a fragrance composition comprising said fragrance ingredient or composition, comprising the steps of: electing, upon a computer interface, at least two ingredient digital identifiers forming a fragrance source, setting, upon a computer interface, a value representative of a relative quantity of at least one said ingredient identified by said digital identifier, selecting, upon a computer interface, a value representative of a distance within a range of at least two distinct values and up to a maximum downstream distance from the fragrance source at which at least one ingredient presents a minimum sensory intensity level corresponding to a predetermined minimum psychophysical intensity for each said ingredient, retrieving, from an electronic storage, a minimum spatial dilution value associated with the selected distance, determining, by a computing system, a value representative of gas phase concentration of at least one said ingredient corresponding to the spatial dilution value retrieved and computing, by a computing system, for the selected value of distance, at least one value representative of a sensory intensity level as a function of a dose-response curve linking gas phase concentration to sensory intensity level." where psychophysical intensity can be considered to show an emotive or cognitive response)
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Shcherbakov with Haruka because identifying lower or upper most concentrations enables more effective determination and impact of scents where customers experience at different thresholds (see Shcherbakov, para [0011]-[0025]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the fragrance ingredient prediction method as taught by Shcherbakov in the aroma generating system of Haruka, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lamb et al. (US 2023/0032040 A1), a method that delivers a personalized fragrance match to consumers based on fragrance testing, next-generation artificial intelligence, facial emotional recognition, and olfactory science
Tang (CN 112493998 A), an olfactory sensory evaluation method comprising receiving the electroencephalogram signal collected by the electroencephalogram device in the product smell experience process; obtaining the first electroencephalogram data changing along with time; the product smell experience process is the experience process of the product with special smell; calculating the emotion experience index value tested in the product smell experience process based on the first electroencephalogram data; using the value of each electrode of alpha wave band in the first electroencephalogram data as awaking data; based on the wake-up data, calculating the wake-up degree value tested in the product smell experience process; evaluating the emotion experience caused by the product smell based on the emotion experience index value and awakening degree value, obtaining the first evaluation result
Porcherot et al. "Effect of context on fine fragrance-elicited emotions: Comparison of three experimental methodologies", a paper on drivers for liking or disliking certain products or experiences may be captured to some extent by physiological and behavioral measures (psycho-physiological measures) of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) rather than by conscious or traditional sensory surveys
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUJAY KONERU whose telephone number is 571-270-3409. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Munson can be reached on 571- 270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUJAY KONERU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights