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 .
Applicant filed a response dated 1/22/2026 in which claims 1-7, 15, 17-18, 22-23, and 25-26 have been amended, claims 9-14 have been canceled. Thus, the claims 1-8 and 15-26 are pending in the application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/22/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/2/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-8 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of generating rules that target brain states of specific meditation styles without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 is directed to a method comprising: receiving, at a rule generation system, a first brain activity dataset that includes a first set of metrics reflecting assorted EEG data for multiple human persons each practicing one of a plurality of meditation styles; classifying, at the rule generation system, each metric of the first set of metrics under one meditation style of the specific mediation styles, wherein a first metric is classified under a first meditation style; generating, at the rule generation system, a first rule targeting a brain state associated with the first meditation style that is based on the first metric, the first rule associated with a first weight; and providing, to a first user and via a user interface for an application associated with the rule generation system accessed via a first computing device, a first brain activity training session based on the first rule that is configured to promote the first meditation style via neurofeedback, wherein the first brain activity training session: is provided while user EEG data is collected from the first user via an EEG headset worn by the first user and transmitted to the first computing device, includes a depth scoring user feedback system that: segments the user EEG data into a multiple subsets that include a first subset corresponding to brainwave activity over a first time interval, extracts a second set of features from the first subset using power spectral density (PSD) and log energy entropy, calculates, for second set of features in the first subset, a z-score for the first metric by reference to an average value for that metric in the first brain activity dataset, the z-score characterizing the brainwave activity over the first time interval, obtains a first depth score for the first user during the first time interval by applying the first weight to the z-score, and depicts a visual record of the user EEG data collected over the first time interval in real-time along with the corresponding first depth score, the first depth score indicating for the first time interval whether the first user is successfully producing a brain state linked to the first meditation style. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe the abstract idea of generating rules that target brain states of specific meditation styles which may correspond to a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The additional elements of a rule generation system, a user interface, a first computing device, an EEG headset, and a depth scoring user feedback system do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a rule generation system, a user interface, a first computing device, an EEG headset, and a depth scoring user feedback system result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a rule generation system, a user interface, a first computing device, and a depth scoring user feedback system are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing device. The presence of a generic computing device does nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. The additional element of an EEG headset is also recited at a high level of generality in that it amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering step) and do not transform the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the recitation of additional elements of a rule generation system, a user interface, a first computing device, an EEG headset, and a depth scoring user feedback system do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a rule generation system, a user interface, a first computing device, and a depth scoring user feedback system are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment. The additional element of an EEG headset is also recited at a high level of generality in that it amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering step) and do not transform the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 1 is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 21-23 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 1 and hence corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract in nature for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-8 and 21-23 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-8 and 21-23 are not patent-eligible.
Claims 15-20 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of generating rules that promote a specific brain state without significantly more.
Claim 15 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 15 is directed to a method comprising: receiving from a first user, at a rule generation system, a first input indicating the first user’s perception of their brain state during a data collection session, wherein the first input indicates the first user’s perception of their brain state over a first period directly preceding their submission of the first input; receiving, at the rule generation system, a first recording of brainwave data for the first user captured during the data collection session that includes first brainwave data; classifying, at the rule generation system, the first brainwave data user a first brain state based on the first input; extracting, from the first brainwave data and via the rule generation system, values for a first set of metrics including a first metric that characterize the first brainwave data; calculating, at the rule generation system, an average z-score for each metric in the first set of metrics, thereby generating a first set of average z-scores; generating, at the rule generation system, a first rule based on the average z-score for the first metric; providing, via a first computing device and to a second user, a first brain activity training session configured to promote the first brain state that is based on the first rule, wherein the first brain activity training session: is provided while user EEG data is collected from the second user via an EEG headset worn by the second user and transmitted to the first computing device, includes a depth scoring user feedback system that calculates, in real-time, a sequence of depth scores, each depth score corresponding to a particular time increment of the user EEG data as it is received at the first computing device, and depicts a visual record of the user EEG data in real-time along with the corresponding depth scores, each depth score indicating for its respective time increment whether the first user is successfully producing a brain state linked to the first brain state. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe the abstract idea of generating rules that target brain states of specific meditation styles which may correspond to a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The additional elements of a rule generation system, a first computing device, and an EEG headset do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 15 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a rule generation system, and a first computing device result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a rule generation system, and a first computing device are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing device. The presence of a generic computing device does nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. The additional element of an EEG headset is also recited at a high level of generality in that it amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering step) and do not transform the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the recitation of additional elements of a rule generation system, a first computing device, and an EEG headset do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a rule generation system, and a first computing device are recited at a high level of generality in that it result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment The additional element of an EEG headset is also recited at a high level of generality in that it amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering step) and do not transform the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 15 is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claims 16-20 and 24-26 further define the abstract idea that is present in the independent claim 15 and hence corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract in nature for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 16-20 and 24-26 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 15-20 and 24-26 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed dated 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons: With respect to the rejection of claims 1-8 and 15-26 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that under Step 2a, Prong Two, the series of operation recited in amended claim 1 are complex and must be performed by a computing device and cannot be performed manually or by simply automation of a manual computation. Claim 15 is similarly directed to the generation of custom-built rules for promoting and enhancing a person’s meditation practice. In other words, the two independent claims, each as a whole, are directed toward an improvement and, therefore, integrate the recited operations into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the generating, at the rule generation system, a first rule targeting a brain state associated with the first meditation style is recited at a high level of generality in that it simply amounts to applying the underlying abstract idea using a computer system. These rules create a meditation plan for a user and result in improving their experience. This improvement is to the abstract idea and not to technology. The improvement that is to the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to Step 2b, Applicant states that the depth scoring system and interface operates in a non-conventional and non-generic way to determine the degree to which a person is successfully targeting their desired brain state as well as providing nuanced, dynamic guidance to promote and accelerate their ability to achieve the selected brain state.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that it is unclear from the arguments and specification that the additional elements of a depth scoring system and interface are operating in a non-conventional and non-generic manner. There is no evidence on the record that the steps performed by a depth scoring system and interface are non-conventional and non-generic. The determining step is also recited at a high level of generality in that it simply amounts to applying the abstract idea. The creation of an interactive, customized, real-time mediation training protocol that offer benefits to a diverse range of persons and meditation experience levels is an improvement to an abstract idea in which the technical steps are used as a tool to apply the abstract idea. There is no technical improvement. The additional elements do not provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to add significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684