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 .
Remarks
Claims 1-3 are treated as a single claim. If a number of obviously informal claims are filed in an application, such claims should be treated as being a single claim for fee and examination purposes. MPEP 702.01.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the drawings provided are not described in the brief description of the drawing. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The spacing of the lines of the specification is such as to make reading difficult. New application papers with lines 1 1/2 or double spaced (see 37 CFR 1.52(b)(2)) on good quality paper are required.
Claim Objections
The claims 1-3 (read and examined as a single claim 1, see Remark above) are objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b).
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
“METATRON REMOTE”, “Biofeedback diagnostic system”, “Loop” should be written in lower case letters.
Claim ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. (MPEP 608.01 (m)).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims 1-3 (read and examined as a single claim 1, see Remark above) are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claims 1-3 (read and examined as a single claim 1, see Remark above) are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) 1-3 (read and examined as a single claim 1, see Remark above) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claims 1-3 (read and examined as a single claim 1, see Remark above) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the necessary signals” in line 1. The “necessary signals” were not introduced before. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the necessary signals” in line 1. it is unclear and indefinite what the “necessary signals” are and what they encompass which allow for generating scalar waves that enablement the system to determine a pathological condition. The specification does not provide any clarity.
Claim 1 recites “the biofeedback diagnostic system” in line 1. The system was not introduced before. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the patient” in lines 2-3. The “patient” has not been introduced before and this is the first recitation of the patient. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Recommended language would be “a patient”.
Claim 1 recites “i.e. patient not present” in line 3; it is unclear what this limitation is intended to mean. Is the patient not present in the vicinity of the system or is the patient not present anywhere.
Claim 1 recites “the METATRON REMOTE apparatus” in line 7. This is the first time this limitation is being introduced in this claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" in lines 4-5 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitations of “or” in line 7, it is unclear whether the limitations that are provided before and after “or” are being required. The limitation should be re-written to “other patient details comprising DNA from a hair, nail sample and DNA from a pet hair sample [].”
Claim 1 recites “the biofeedback loop” in line 10. The biofeedback loop has not been previously presented. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the device” in line 10. This device has not been previously presented. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the operator” in line 10. The operator has not been previously presented. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “sensors” in line 12. The sensors have not been previously presented. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 1-3 (read and examined as a single claim 1, see Remark above) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following analysis:
1 – statutory category: ‘single’ claim 1 recite a system, and therefore, falls under the statutory category of being a thing or products. See MPEP 2106.03.
2A – Prong 1: The independent claim 1 recite a judicial exception by reciting the limitations of “determine a pathological condition of the patient at any distance”. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind or by a person using a pen and paper. Therefore, an abstract idea is involved.
2A – Prong 2: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The independent claim 1 recite the additional limitations of “Metatron remote” and “biofeedback diagnostic system”, “Metatron remote apparatus”, “sensor”, etc. The mentioned limitations are recited at a high level of generality and are considered to be data gathering/processing which are mere extra-solution activity. The elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, each of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
2B: The emphasized elements cited above do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’I, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Thus, claim 1 is/are directed to an abstract idea and are therefore rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Single claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL titled “Cybernetic Biofeedback CyberScan” hereinafter “CyberScan”) date created February 27, 2019 in view of US Pat No. 6549805 to Nesterov et al. (hereinafter “Nesterov”).
Regarding claim 1. CyberScan discloses a METATRON REMOTE connects and takes the necessary signals from the Biofeedback diagnostic system so that it generates scalar waves that enables the system to determine a pathological condition of the patient at any distance, i.e. patient not present (page 1 “The Cyberscan machine uses Tesla based scalar wave technology”, page 2, “Cyberscan will measure the frequencies emitted from the patient and determine which, if any, imbalances a patient may have. This is done by placing the patient’s hand or hair sample onto the Cyberscan device, over the Tesla coil. The Cyberscan device transfers the scanned information into speciality software that analyzes the patient’s information.”, page 1, see list of conditions that can be addressed by the Cyberscan; it is noted that since the “hair sample” would be sufficient for the device to scan the information and proceed to performing the diagnosis, it is understood that the patient can be at any location or absent).
Just entering into the system some personal details of a patient which carry signature frequency, such as name, date of birth, address, is enough for the system to determine a pathological condition of the patient who is not present and is located at any distance. If there are not enough patient details, DNA from a hair or nail sample or DNA from a pet hair sample can be put into the METATRON REMOTE apparatus (page 2 “placing the patient’s hand or hair sample onto the Cyberscan device”; it is understood that not all of the limitations above are being required and the device/system would work with any of the above inputs).
All functions and capabilities of the Biofeedback diagnostic system are fully available in remote mode, ie. when the patient is not present and METATRON REMOTE is used as part of the biofeedback Loop with the device and the operator. Also, the METATRON REMOTE upgrade does not disturb the Biofeedback diagnostic system so it can be used with the same features in two ways: in local mode with sensors on the patient or in remote mode when the patient is not present (page 2 “placing the patient’s hand or hair sample onto the Cyberscan device”; it is understood that Cyberscan discloses both local and remote mode since it can take either “patient’s hand or hair sample”; page 2 “practitioner to determine the best course of therapy”).
Cyberscan fails to explicitly disclose having sensors on the patient’s head.
Nesterov teaches that it is known for using triggering sensor working remotely to collect biological response from the patient by connecting it to the forehead/head to capture brainwaves (abstract, Col 2, lines 50-51, col 4, lns 35-40). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Cyberscan with the known teachings of Nesterov to provide the predictable result of capturing brainwave data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 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, Jennifer S McDonald can be reached at (571) 270- 3061. 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.
/SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796