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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 19 June 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
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 18, 19, 21-24 and 28-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 18 (and dependent claims 19, 21-24 and 28-34) recite “A computer-implemented method for generating a recipe profile of a fragrance product having a target temporal odour profile, wherein the fragrance product comprises a fragrance composition with one or a plurality of fragrance ingredient(s), comprising the steps of: a) providing the target temporal odour profile, wherein the target temporal odour profile comprises a time-dependent fractural amount of a plurality of odour families over a predetermined period of time, which is indicative of a desired evaporation behaviour of each odour family in the fragrance composition; b) providing, for each odour family, one or more fragrance ingredients having olfactive contributions matching the respective odour family; c) selecting at least one ingredient from each odour family to form one or more recipes of the fragrance product, wherein each recipe comprises fragrance composition data associated with the fragrance ingredients of the recipe; d) determining a temporal odour profile for each recipe; e) determining a distance of each determined temporal odour profile of the one or more recipes to the target temporal odour profile of the fragrance product; f) selecting at least one recipe from the one or more recipes that has a distance satisfying a predefined criterion; and g) providing a recipe profile of the at least one selected recipe preferably usable for production of the fragrance product.”
Claims 18, 19, 21-24 and 28-34, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of “a) providing the target temporal odour profile, wherein the target temporal odour profile comprises a time-dependent fractural amount of a plurality of odour families over a predetermined period of time, which is indicative of a desired evaporation behaviour of each odour family in the fragrance composition; b) providing, for each odour family, one or more fragrance ingredients having olfactive contributions matching the respective odour family; c) selecting at least one ingredient from each odour family to form one or more recipes of the fragrance product, wherein each recipe comprises fragrance composition data associated with the fragrance ingredients of the recipe; d) determining a temporal odour profile for each recipe; e) determining a distance of each determined temporal odour profile of the one or more recipes to the target temporal odour profile of the fragrance product; f) selecting at least one recipe from the one or more recipes that has a distance satisfying a predefined criterion; and g) providing a recipe profile of the at least one selected recipe preferably usable for production of the fragrance product.”
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited “a) providing the target temporal odour profile, wherein the target temporal odour profile comprises a time-dependent fractural amount of a plurality of odour families over a predetermined period of time, which is indicative of a desired evaporation behaviour of each odour family in the fragrance composition; b) providing, for each odour family, one or more fragrance ingredients having olfactive contributions matching the respective odour family; c) selecting at least one ingredient from each odour family to form one or more recipes of the fragrance product, wherein each recipe comprises fragrance composition data associated with the fragrance ingredients of the recipe; d) determining a temporal odour profile for each recipe; e) determining a distance of each determined temporal odour profile of the one or more recipes to the target temporal odour profile of the fragrance product; f) selecting at least one recipe from the one or more recipes that has a distance satisfying a predefined criterion; and g) providing a recipe profile of the at least one selected recipe preferably usable for production of the fragrance product.”; therefore, the claims recite mental processes and mathematical concepts. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process and a mathematical concept, and thus, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
Regarding claims 19, wherein the fragrance product further comprises a matrix; and wherein each recipe further comprises matrix data associated with the matrix. This adds physical element (matrix) and associated data but is still considered as an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 21, wherein steps c)-f) are performed in an iterative process to determine the at least one recipe. This adds iterative refinement but without the physical modeling details; and hence, it is considered as an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 22, wherein the target temporal odour profile comprises a plurality of evaporation regimes over the predetermined period of time, wherein in each of the plurality of evaporation regimes a fractural amount of odour families are defined. This adds somewhat specificity to the target profile structure but not enough to overcome the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 23, wherein in step b) the plurality of fragrance ingredients is refined by selecting fragrance ingredients with a particular performance characteristic including a particular physical characteristic, a particular chemical characteristic, or a combination thereof. This adds some ingredient selection to the target profile structure but not enough to overcome the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 24, wherein in step b) the plurality of fragrance ingredients is provided by including mandatory ingredients and/or excluding undesired ingredients. This adds some ingredient selection to the target profile structure but not enough to overcome the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 28, further comprising: generating a control file based on the recipe profile of the at least one selected recipe, which is usable for controlling production of the fragrance product. This step merely shows any improved application to overcome the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 29, a method for monitoring production of a fragrance product, the method comprising the steps of: providing a target temporal evaporation profile; providing a performance characteristic of a produced fragrance product that has a recipe profile generated according to the method of claim 18; and comparing the performance characteristic with the target temporal evaporation profile to determine if the produced fragrance product fulfils predetermined quality criteria. This adds somewhat specificity to the target profile structure but not enough to overcome the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 30, a method for validating production of a fragrance product, the method comprising the steps of: providing an existing temporal evaporation profile for a fragrance composition that has been produced from validated precursors; generating a recipe profile based on the existing temporal evaporation profile according to the method of claim 18, wherein the recipe profile comprises an ingredient identifier and related property data, which are associated with at least one new precursor; and comparing a performance characteristic of a fragrance product produced using the recipe profile and the existing temporal evaporation profile to validate the at least one new precursor. These steps recite an abstract idea that does not add an inventive concept or particular machine.
Regarding claim 31, an apparatus for generating a recipe profile of a fragrance product having a target temporal odour profile, wherein the fragrance product comprises a fragrance composition with one or a plurality of fragrance ingredient(s) and a matrix, the apparatus comprising one or more processing unit(s) configured to generate the recipe profile of the fragrance product, wherein the processing unit(s) include instructions, which when executed on the one or more processing unit(s) execute the method steps of claim 18. These generic processing units and instructions implementing an abstract method typically do not add an inventive concept or particular machine.
Regarding claim 32, an apparatus for monitoring production of a fragrance product, the apparatus comprising one or more processing unit(s) configured to monitor production, wherein the processing unit(s) include instructions, which when executed on the one or more processing unit(s) execute the method steps of claim 29. These generic processing units and instructions implementing an abstract method typically do not add an inventive concept or particular machine.
Regarding claim 33, a computer program element comprising instructions, which when executed by a processing unit, cause the processing unit to carry out the steps of the method of claim 18. This standard computer program provides no additional practical application weight.
Regarding claim 34, use of recipe profile generated in a method according to claim 18 for quality control and/or verification purposes. This is a use claim, which provides no additional practical application weight
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of“[a] computer- implemented method” and “the method is carried out by one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions” as recited in claims 31 and 33, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 19, 21-24, 28-30, 32 and 34 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 19, 21-24 and 28-34 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea. Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 18, 19, 21-24 and 28-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20 and 25-27 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for the allowance of claim 20 is the inclusion of a computer-implemented method for generating a recipe profile of a fragrance product, the method includes the steps of: receiving a measured performance characteristic of the fragrance product produced according to the provided recipe profile, wherein the measured performance characteristic is indicative of a temporal odour profile of the produced fragrance product; determining a distance between the temporal odour profile of the produced fragrance product and the target temporal odour profile; and providing, based on the distance, an updated recipe profile of the fragrance product. It is these steps found in the claims, as they are claimed in the combination of, that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claims 25-27 is the inclusion of a computer-implemented method for generating a recipe profile of a fragrance product, the method includes the steps of: receiving a recipe that comprises fragrance composition data associated with one or more fragrance ingredients of the fragrance composition; providing a vapour pressure of each fragrance ingredient based on the fragrance ingredients data; determining, based on the fragrance ingredients data, a time-dependent interaction coefficient of each fragrance ingredient in a condensed phase of the fragrance composition over a predetermined period of time; generating, based on the provided vapour pressure and the determined time-dependent interaction coefficient, the temporal evaporation profile of the fragrance product, wherein the temporal evaporation profile is related to a time-dependent quantity associated with the evaporation behaviour of each fragrance ingredient of the fragrance product over the predetermined period of time; and providing the generated temporal evaporation profile for the recipe. It is these steps found in the claims, as they are claimed in the combination of, that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sala et al (US 12,700,480) disclose a method for generating or predicting temporal evaporation profiles of a fragrance product comprising a plurality of fragrance ingredients by determining the composition of the gas phase and/or condensed phase of the composition over time via quantum chemical calculations and displaying the temporal fragrance ingredient profile and/or the temporal odour families profile and/or any other temporal performance criteria profile. Lelievre et al (US 12,002,550) disclose a computer-implemented method of predicting the temporal fragrance profile of a fragrance composition comprising a plurality of fragrance ingredients.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN H DO whose telephone number is (571)272-2143. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached on 571-272-5960. 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.
/AN H DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights