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 the patent application 18/628,502 originally filed on April 5, 2024. Claims 1-17 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 8, and 14 are independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on October 7, 2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Priority
This application claims priority of US Provisional Application 63/585,271, filed September 26, 2023.
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 1-17 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 1, and substantially similar limitations in claims 8 and 14, recites the limitation “a mind map.” The limitation is originally introduced earlier in respective claim 1, 8, or 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 1, 8, or 14. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 14 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. Claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-17 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claims 1, 8, and 14.
Claim 2, and substantially similar limitations in claims 3, 8, 9, and 14, recites the limitation “the value.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or 8, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 8 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. Claims 9-13 and 15-17 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claims 18 and 14.
Claim 9, recites the limitation “a magnetic device.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 8. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[a]] the magnetic device”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 8. Therefore, claim 9 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 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 1-17 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 1, 8, and 14 are each 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 negative beliefs,” either 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), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion).
Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations (from exemplary claim 1):
“presenting a mind map to a subject, wherein the mind map comprises one or more categories, one or more subcategories, and one or more sets of negative beliefs;
asking the subject one or more questions based on the mind map;
performing muscle response testing on the subject after each question has been asked; and
identifying a negative belief based on the subject’s muscle response testing.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). 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,” “a magnetic device,” and “a monitoring 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 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,” “a magnetic device,” and “a monitoring 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.
Applicant’s claimed “a monitoring device” is described in paragraph [0031] as “having sensors and software configured to measure physiological responses, such as galvanic skin response, skin conductivity and temperature, breathing patterns, electrical brain activity, and/or heart rate variability.”
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 claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-17 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-17 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claims 1, 8, and 14.
Therefore, claims 1-17 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 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 2015/0073307).
Regarding claim 1, Nelson discloses a method … using a mind map, the method comprising:
presenting a mind map to a subject, wherein the mind map comprises one or more categories, one or more subcategories (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.”) …
asking the subject one or more questions based on the mind map (Nelson [0004], “asking the subject a question based on the mind map”);
performing muscle response testing on the subject after each question has been asked (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.”).
Nelson does not explicitly teach that the method is for “identifying negative beliefs.” Instead, Nelson performs the exact method 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.
Regarding claim 6, Nelson does not explicitly teach wherein the mind map comprises at least seven categories. Nelson discloses six categories (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 is 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.
Regarding claim 7, Nelson does not explicitly teach wherein the at least seven categories comprise 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.
Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 12-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson in view of “Your Governing Meridian & Your Health” by Amy Kramer (hereinafter “Kramer,” Non-patent Literature, full citation in PTO-892).
Regarding claim 2, Nelson does not teach swiping a magnetic device over the subject’s governing meridian while holding the intention to remove the negative belief.
However, Kramer discloses swiping a magnetic device over the subject’s governing meridian while holding the intention 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 swiping a magnetic device over the subject’s governing meridian while holding the intention 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.
Regarding claim 3, Nelson does not teach swiping a magnetic device over the subject’s governing meridian while holding the intention to install a positive belief.
However, Kramer discloses swiping a magnetic device over the subject’s governing meridian while holding the 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, just 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 swiping a magnetic device over the subject’s governing meridian while holding the 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.
Regarding claim 8, Nelson discloses a method of … using a mind map, the method comprising:
referencing a mind map, wherein the mind map comprises one or more categories, one or more subcategories (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.”) …
asking the subject one or more questions based on the mind map (Nelson [0004], “asking the subject a question based on the mind map”);
performing muscle response testing on the subject after each question has been asked (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.”).
Nelson does not explicitly teach that the method is for “identifying negative beliefs.” Instead, Nelson performs the exact method 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 teach swiping a magnetic device over the subject’s governing meridian while holding the intention to remove the negative belief.
However, Kramer discloses swiping a magnetic device over the subject’s governing meridian while holding the intention 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 swiping a magnetic device over the subject’s governing meridian while holding the intention 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.
Regarding claim 9, Nelson does not teach swiping a magnetic device over the subject’s governing meridian while holding the intention to install a positive belief.
However, Kramer discloses swiping a magnetic device over the subject’s governing meridian while holding the 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, just 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 swiping a magnetic device over the subject’s governing meridian while holding the 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.
Regarding claim 12, and substantially similar limitations in claim 17, Nelson in view of Kramer does not explicitly teach wherein the mind map comprises at least seven categories. Nelson discloses six categories (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 is 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.
Regarding claim 13, Nelson in view of Kramer does not explicitly teach wherein the at least seven categories comprise 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.
Regarding claim 14, Nelson discloses a method of … using a mind map, the method comprising:
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 (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”; the specific categories of the mind map are printed matter, see rejection of claim 13 supra);
each category of the plurality of categories comprising one or more subcategories (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”) …
asking the subject one or more questions based on the mind map (Nelson [0004], “asking the subject a question based on the mind map”);
performing muscle response testing on the subject after each question has been asked (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.”).
Nelson does not explicitly teach that the method is for “identifying negative beliefs.” Instead, Nelson performs the exact method 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 teach swiping a magnetic device over the subject’s governing meridian while holding the intention to remove the negative belief.
However, Kramer discloses swiping a magnetic device over the subject’s governing meridian while holding the intention 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 swiping a magnetic device over the subject’s governing meridian while holding the intention 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 does not teach swiping a magnetic device over the subject’s governing meridian while holding the intention to install a positive belief.
However, Kramer discloses swiping a magnetic device over the subject’s governing meridian while holding the 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, just 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 swiping a magnetic device over the subject’s governing meridian while holding the 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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson in view of Intrator (US 2022/0369986).
Regarding claim 4, Nelson does not teach using a monitoring device configured to measure physiological responses of the subject.
However, Intrator discloses using a monitoring device configured to measure physiological responses of the subject (Intrator [0005], “an apparatus configured to be worn on an individual's head, and record: i) the individual's brain electrical activity, ii) at least one physiological parameter of the individual, selected from the group consisting of: heart rate, blood oxygen levels, body temperature, respiration rate, skin temperature, skin conductivity, and movement, and iii) at least one environmental parameter”).
Intrator is analogous to Nelson, as both are drawn to the art of physical testing. 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 using a monitoring device configured to measure physiological responses of the subject, as taught by Intrator, in order to identify an underlying mental state (Intrator [0110]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Nelson does not teach wherein the physiological responses comprise one or more of galvanic skin response, skin conductivity, skin temperature, breathing patterns, electrical brain activity, or heart rate variability.
However, Intrator discloses wherein the physiological responses comprise one or more of galvanic skin response, skin conductivity, skin temperature, breathing patterns, electrical brain activity, or heart rate variability (Intrator [0005], “an apparatus configured to be worn on an individual's head, and record: i) the individual's brain electrical activity, ii) at least one physiological parameter of the individual, selected from the group consisting of: heart rate, blood oxygen levels, body temperature, respiration rate, skin temperature, skin conductivity, and movement, and iii) at least one environmental parameter”).
Intrator is analogous to Nelson, as both are drawn to the art of physical testing. 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 wherein the physiological responses comprise one or more of galvanic skin response, skin conductivity, skin temperature, breathing patterns, electrical brain activity, or heart rate variability, as taught by Intrator, in order to identify an underlying mental state (Intrator [0110]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 10, 11, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson in view of Kramer, and in further view of Intrator.
Regarding claim 10, and substantially similar limitations in claim 15, Nelson in view of Kramer does not teach using a monitoring device configured to measure physiological responses of the subject.
However, Intrator discloses using a monitoring device configured to measure physiological responses of the subject (Intrator [0005], “an apparatus configured to be worn on an individual's head, and record: i) the individual's brain electrical activity, ii) at least one physiological parameter of the individual, selected from the group consisting of: heart rate, blood oxygen levels, body temperature, respiration rate, skin temperature, skin conductivity, and movement, and iii) at least one environmental parameter”).
Intrator is analogous to Nelson in view of Kramer, as both are drawn to the art of physical testing. 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 in view of Kramer, to include using a monitoring device configured to measure physiological responses of the subject, as taught by Intrator, in order to identify an underlying mental state (Intrator [0110]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, and substantially similar limitations in claim 16, Nelson in view of Kramer does not teach wherein the physiological responses comprise one or more of galvanic skin response, skin conductivity, skin temperature, breathing patterns, electrical brain activity, or heart rate variability.
However, Intrator discloses wherein the physiological responses comprise one or more of galvanic skin response, skin conductivity, skin temperature, breathing patterns, electrical brain activity, or heart rate variability (Intrator [0005], “an apparatus configured to be worn on an individual's head, and record: i) the individual's brain electrical activity, ii) at least one physiological parameter of the individual, selected from the group consisting of: heart rate, blood oxygen levels, body temperature, respiration rate, skin temperature, skin conductivity, and movement, and iii) at least one environmental parameter”).
Intrator is analogous to Nelson in view of Kramer, as both are drawn to the art of physical testing. 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 in view of Kramer, to include wherein the physiological responses comprise one or more of galvanic skin response, skin conductivity, skin temperature, breathing patterns, electrical brain activity, or heart rate variability, as taught by Intrator, in order to identify an underlying mental state (Intrator [0110]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
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