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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on April 22, 2026 for the patent application 18/628,502 originally filed on April 5, 2024. Claim 14 is amended. Claims 1-13 and 15-17 are canceled. Claim 18 is new. Claims 14 and 18 remain pending. The first office action of January 22, 2026 is fully incorporated by reference into this office action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been noted by the Examiner.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have partially overcome the outstanding rejections under 35 USC 112(b). However, claim 14 remains rejected under 35 USC 112(b), for reasons set forth below.
The Applicant’s amendments to the claims are not sufficient to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101, for reasons set forth below.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the outstanding 35 USC 103 rejections. However, new rejections under 35 USC 103 are set forth below.
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.
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a mind map.” The limitation is originally introduced earlier in claim 14. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[a]] the mind map”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 14. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 18 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 14.
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 14 and 18 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.
Claim 14 is directed to “a method” (i.e. a process), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “identifying and modifying negative beliefs” in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions).
Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as “certain methods of organizing human activity,” which require the following limitations (from exemplary claim 14):
“presenting a mind map to a subject, wherein the mind map comprises a plurality of categories comprising divine, communication, power, survival, insight, love, and passion;
each category of the plurality of categories comprising one or more subcategories, each subcategory comprising one or more sets of negative beliefs;
sequentially asking the subject one or more yes-or-no questions corresponding to the categories and subcategories of the mind map;
for each asked question, performing muscle response testing by applying a substantially constant physical force to an indicator muscle of the subject and determining whether the indicator muscle exhibits resistance or lack of resistance to the applied force;
wherein resistance of the indicator muscle to the applied force indicates a first physiological response and lack of resistance indicates a second physiological response;
identifying a negative belief based on a sequence of determined physiological responses corresponding to the asked questions;
after identifying the negative belief, swiping a magnetic device three times along at least a portion of a governing meridian of the subject extending from an inferior region of a spine toward a superior region of a head, applying manual movement independent of the subject's cognitive input, thereby applying a physical stimulus to the subject to remove the negative belief;
performing subsequent muscle response testing on the subject to determine whether the physiological response associated with the identified negative belief is no longer present; and
upon determining that the physiological response associated with the negative belief is no longer present, physically swiping the magnetic device three times along the subject's governing meridian to apply a second physical stimulus to the subject while holding an intention to install a positive belief; and
wherein installation of the positive belief is confirmed by a change in the resistance response of the indicator muscle during subsequent muscle response testing.”
Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a mind map” and “a magnetic device” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “identifying and modifying negative beliefs,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a mind map” and “a magnetic device” are claimed these are all generic, well-known, and conventional elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a mind map” is described in paragraph [0025] as comprising “a diagram or table whereby information is organized into a hierarchy. The mind map outlines relationships amongst individual negative beliefs to assist the user in mapping and understanding the user’s overall belief system. The mind map may be presented in a printed form, shown via electronic means, or otherwise recited verbally to the subject.” (emphasis added)
The Applicant’s claimed “a magnetic device” is described in paragraph [0008], “a magnetic device, such as a magnet or the tester’s hand.” That is, the magnetic device can be an ordinary magnet or a person’s hand.
Regarding the additional elements, the Examiner further notes that the specification paragraph [0045] states that in some embodiments of the invention, “a mind map is presented using an electronic means for interacting with a series of links until a final identification is made. In said embodiment, the electronic means comprises a computer readable medium, such as a compact disc, ROM memory, or flash memory, that is inserted or otherwise installed onto a personal electronic device (e.g., smartphone or tablet), computer, or other computing device. For example, a physician with a computer or tablet in the examination room may either view the files electronically or may run an executable file that allows for installation on the computer, or that otherwise allows a user to interact with the mind map.” (emphasis added)
These elements are reasonably interpreted as conventional components (e.g. a magnet, a hand, or paper) or generic computer components which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitations are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claim 18 does not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claim 18 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on its dependency to independent claim 14.
Therefore, claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
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.
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 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 2015/0073307) in view of “Your Governing Meridian & Your Health” by Amy Kramer (hereinafter “Kramer,” Non-patent Literature, full citation in PTO-892).
Regarding claim 14, Nelson discloses a method of … using a mind map, the method comprising:
presenting a mind map to a subject (Nelson Abstract, “presenting a mind map to a subject… The mind map further comprises six (6) categories… and a series of subcategories within each category.”) …
each category of the plurality of categories comprising one or more subcategories, each subcategory comprising one or more sets of negative beliefs (Nelson Abstract, “a series of subcategories within each category.”);
sequentially asking the subject one or more yes-or-no questions corresponding to the categories and subcategories of the mind map (Nelson [0004], “asking the subject a question based on the mind map”);
for each asked question, performing muscle response testing by applying a substantially constant physical force to an indicator muscle of the subject and determining whether the indicator muscle exhibits resistance or lack of resistance to the applied force (Nelson [0021], “the tester asks the subject a question based on the general categories (see FIG. 1) of the mind map and performs muscle response testing. The subconscious mind of a person knows, and is able to identify (through muscle testing), the category within which the body has an imbalance.”);
wherein resistance of the indicator muscle to the applied force indicates a first physiological response and lack of resistance indicates a second physiological response (Nelson [0021], supra);
identifying a negative belief based on a sequence of determined physiological responses corresponding to the asked questions (Nelson [0021], supra);
…
performing subsequent muscle response testing on the subject to determine whether the physiological response associated with the identified negative belief is no longer present (Nelson [0021], supra); and
…
wherein installation of the positive belief is confirmed by a change in the resistance response of the indicator muscle during subsequent muscle response testing (Nelson [0021], supra).
Nelson does not explicitly teach that the method is for “identifying negative beliefs.” Instead, Nelson performs the exact method of identification as claimed, but for “identifying bodily imbalances.” These are different intended uses of the same invention. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim. In this case, “identifying negative beliefs,” in light of the Applicant’s specification as originally filed, relates to the intended use of a method which could be performed by Nelson with a reasonable expectation of success.
Nelson does not explicitly teach wherein the mind map comprises a plurality of categories comprising divine, communication, power, survival, insight, love, and passion. Nelson discloses mind map categories “pathogenic imbalances, structural imbalances, nutritional imbalances, circuitry imbalances, toxic imbalances, and energetic imbalances” (Nelson Abstract).
The instant specification states that “[t]he mind map may be presented in a printed form, shown via electronic means, or otherwise recited verbally to the subject.” That is, the mind map and its categories are essentially printed matter.
However, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack 217 USPQ 401, (CAFC 1983) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862. The content of the printed matter used does not alter or provide a functional relationship with the substrate. Mere support by the substrate for the printed matter is not the kind of functional relationship necessary for patentability. Thus, there is no novel and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter (e.g., contents and categories of a mind map) and the substrate (e.g., medium upon which it is printed) which is required for patentability.
Nelson does not teach after identifying the negative belief, swiping a magnetic device three times along at least a portion of a governing meridian of the subject extending from an inferior region of a spine toward a superior region of a head, applying manual movement independent of the subject's cognitive input, thereby applying a physical stimulus to the subject to remove the negative belief.
However, Kramer discloses after identifying the negative belief, swiping a magnetic device three times along at least a portion of a governing meridian of the subject extending from an inferior region of a spine toward a superior region of a head, applying manual movement independent of the subject's cognitive input, thereby applying a physical stimulus to the subject to remove the negative belief (Kramer page 1, paragraph 5, “practitioners will clear energetic blockages, imbalances, and trapped emotions from the Governing Meridian. This is typically done by first identifying the specific energy that is causing an issue, then swiping a magnet along the Governing Meridian.”).
Kramer is analogous to Nelson, as both are drawn to the art of alternative medicine. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Nelson, to include after identifying the negative belief, swiping a magnetic device three times along at least a portion of a governing meridian of the subject extending from an inferior region of a spine toward a superior region of a head, applying manual movement independent of the subject's cognitive input, thereby applying a physical stimulus to the subject to remove the negative belief, as taught by Kramer, in order to pull the identified blockage from the body (Kramer page 1, paragraph 5). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Nelson in view of Kramer does not teach upon determining that the physiological response associated with the negative belief is no longer present, physically swiping the magnetic device three times along the subject's governing meridian to apply a second physical stimulus to the subject while holding an intention to install a positive belief.
However, Kramer discloses upon determining that the physiological response associated with the negative belief is no longer present, physically swiping the magnetic device three times along the subject's governing meridian to apply a second physical stimulus to the subject while holding an intention to install a positive belief (Kramer page 1, paragraph 5, “practitioners will clear energetic blockages, imbalances, and trapped emotions from the Governing Meridian. This is typically done by first identifying the specific energy that is causing an issue, then swiping a magnet along the Governing Meridian,” while Kramer discloses swiping the magnetic device while holding the intention to “remove the negative belief,” the instant claim 3 recites swiping the magnetic device while holding the intention to “install a positive belief.” However, structurally the method steps are the same, only with differences in the thoughts of the user while performing the method steps. Such differences in the thoughts of the user do not change the structure of the method, and therefore are considered “intended use,” which fail to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art).
Kramer is analogous to Nelson, as both are drawn to the art of alternative medicine. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Nelson, to include upon determining that the physiological response associated with the negative belief is no longer present, physically swiping the magnetic device three times along the subject's governing meridian to apply a second physical stimulus to the subject while holding an intention to install a positive belief, as taught by Kramer, because it would have been “obvious to try,” since there are a small finite number of identified, predictable intentions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 14 supra. Claim 14 is directed to a method of identifying and modifying negative beliefs. Claim 18 differs from claim 14 only in that it provides steps for identifying and modifying positive beliefs. However, the steps of identifying and modifying positive beliefs are the same, structurally, as the steps for identifying and modifying negative beliefs. In both cases, muscle response testing is used to identify or confirm beliefs, and swiping a magnetic device along the governing meridian while the subject holds an intention of changing the beliefs is used to modify the beliefs.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on April 22, 2026 have been fully considered. The Examiner’s responses are provided below.
Regarding 35 USC 101
The Applicant respectfully argues, “These steps cannot be performed in the human mind, nor can they be performed by observing, evaluating, or judging information. The subject's beliefs are not determined by introspection or reasoning, but rather by biomechanical muscle response to applied force. The measured muscle resistance response is involuntary and occurs independent of the subject's conscious control, further confirming that the claim does not recite or rely upon mental evaluation or behavioral management.”
Upon consideration of Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner agrees. The claims set forth steps requiring “physical force to a muscle,” “measuring involuntary muscle resistance,” and “applying a physical magnetic stimulus to a defined anatomical structure.” These are method steps that cannot be performed in the human mind. Therefore, the outstanding 35 USC 101 rejection directed to “mental processes” is withdrawn. However, the 35 USC 101 rejection directed to “certain methods of organizing human activity” still applies to the claims.
The Applicant further respectfully argues, “amended claim 14 integrates any such concept into a practical application by: …Using muscle resistance as a measurable physiological marker …Applying physical stimulation using a magnet along a specific anatomical meridian to effect a physical change… The claim therefore applies any alleged abstract concept in a concrete physiological context, in contrast to claims that merely collect and analyze information. The method modifies the physical state of the body.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that the muscle resistance test is merely an observation of physical state, similar to how a sensor attached to the body might measure heart rate or temperature. The Examiner further notes that the instant specification paragraph [0008] defines “a magnetic device” as being “a magnet or the tester’s hand,” and therefore it is not necessarily a physical magnet. Combined, the observation of physical state and swiping of a hand three times over a governing meridian of a subject does not appear to modify the physical state of the subject. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The Applicant also respectfully argues, “Amended claim 14 further recites an inventive concept by requiring a specific ordered combination of: … 1. Force-based muscle testing… 2. Meridian-specific magnetic stimulation to effectuate physiological changes… This is not routine, generic, or conventional information processing. Rather, it is a particularized physiological intervention protocol, disclosed and claimed with anatomical specificity and mechanical detail.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s “Force-based muscle testing” according to the claims comprises a person “applying a substantially constant physical force to an indicator muscle of the subject and determining whether the indicator muscle exhibits resistance or lack of resistance to the applied force.” This limitation amounts to a person simply pressing a portion of the body of a subject and sensing resistance or lack of resistance.
The Applicant’s “Meridian-specific magnetic stimulation” according to the claims comprises a person “swiping a magnetic device three times along at least a portion of a governing meridian of the subject extending from an inferior region of a spine toward a superior region of a head, applying manual movement independent of the subject’s cognitive input.” As established above, the “magnetic device” may be “a hand.” Accordingly, this limitation can be interpreted as swiping a hand three times anywhere along a subject’s spine or head.
These limitations do not contain the anatomical specificity and mechanical detail necessary to amount to “significantly more” in order to satisfy Step 2B.
The Examiner notes a couple of considerations that are relevant to analysis of the claims under 35 USC 101:
Thus far in prosecution of the claims, the Examiner has presumed credible utility of claimed features such as “swiping a magnetic device three times… to remove the negative belief” (see MPEP 2107.02(III), “An Asserted Utility Creates a Presumption of Utility”). However, there is a gap in the specifics of how this can work, as the disclosure does not appear to explain how one can move from “Tester swipes a magnetic device over the governing meridian” to “The negative belief is removed” (see instant application Fig. 6). According to the claims and disclosure, beliefs in a subject’s mind may be altered simply by moving a magnetic device anywhere along the subject’s spine or head areas (the governing meridian). The disclosure offers no explanation of how this works. This raises possible concerns regarding written description requirements under 35 USC 112(a), and credible utility requirements as described in MPEP 2107.02(III).
On the other hand, if the claimed invention is assumed to be adequately disclosed and having credible utility, issues may be raised regarding the “laws of nature” and/or “natural phenomena” judicially recognized exceptions under 35 USC 101. That is, if it is true that swiping a hand across someone’s head alters their beliefs, this would likely be because of some law of nature or natural phenomena, and an applicant obtaining a patent on it would likely monopolize the judicial exception.
For the above reasons, the 35 USC 101 rejections are maintained.
Regarding 35 USC 103
The Applicant respectfully argues, “While Kramer discusses magnet swiping along the governing meridian, Kramer is narrative and non-protocol-based, does not disclose mind-map-guided identification, does not disclose belief-specific targeting, and does not disclose physiological verification via muscle response testing. Additionally, Kramer fails to suggest implanting positive beliefs via magnet swiping along the governing meridian… Because Kramer teaches only removal and release, extending Kramer to install a positive belief would not have been a predictable variation, but rather a reversal of Kramer's expressly disclosed mechanism. Therefore, Applicant's claimed limitation of installing a positive belief is not disclosed, taught, or suggested, nor would it have been "a predictable solution" since Kramer teaches the opposite.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is first noted that Kramer is not relied upon for its teaching of mind-map-guided identification, belief-specific targeting, or physiological verification via muscle response testing. These features are disclosed by Nelson, as applied in the above rejections.
While Kramer does not specifically teach installing of positive beliefs, the structural steps for installing positive beliefs is the same as the steps for removing negative beliefs. The only difference between the steps for installing positive beliefs and the steps for removing negative beliefs is the thoughts the subject holds in their mind while the practitioner performs the process of changing the subject’s beliefs. This results in there being no structural difference between the two processes, and thus no patentable distinction. This amounts to a difference in “intended use” of the procedure recited in the claims, which does not patentably distinguish between the processes of installing positive beliefs or removing negative beliefs.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/STEPHEN ALVESTEFFER/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
