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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 1/13/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because NPL No. 3 “International Preliminary Report on Patentability dated January 31, 2023, directed to International Application No. PCT/US2021/043760; 10 pages” does not seem to be in the application file nor the parent application, 17/389023; in other words, no copy could be found in the current application nor 17/389023’s application files. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
The information disclosure statement filed 1/13/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because NPL No. 2 “Office Action dated March 16, 2026, directed to IN Application No. 202317011701; 8 pages” does not seem to be in the application file nor the parent application, 17/389023; in other words, no copy could be found in the current application nor 17/389023’s application files. Note that there is an upload of NPL of 4/6/2026 within the instant application files that has 8 pages but all the pages are blank:
PNG
media_image1.png
991
1882
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A review of the upload receipt shows very little data size for this file:
PNG
media_image2.png
743
1429
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 27, 33, 41 of U.S. Patent No. 12207927. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim(s) is/are broader than the corresponding claim(s) in the reference patent and thus the corresponding claim(s) is/are a species of the more generic instant claim(s). It has been held that the generic invention is "anticipated" by the "species". See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim(s) overlap in scope with and are anticipated and/or obvious over the reference claim(s).
Regarding claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12207927 teaches a method for assessing neurotransmitter levels of a user based on a user's activity data stored on a computing device (claim 1), the method comprising:
receiving data from a computing device associated with the user, wherein the received data comprises one or more categorizations of one or more activities performed by the user from the user (claim 1);
determining one or more emotions by applying the received one or more categorizations of the one or more activities performed by the user to a behavior-to-positive emotion (B-PE) matrix (claim 11), wherein the B-PE matrix indicates respective correspondences between a plurality of activity categorizations and a plurality of positive emotions associated with one or more of the activity categorizations of the plurality of activity categorizations (claim 11);
displaying, based on the determined one or more emotions, a graphical user interface configured to receive one or more quantitative ratings corresponding to each of the determined one or more emotions from the user (claim 1);
determining one or more neurotransmitter activity levels of the user by applying the received one or more quantitative ratings received from the user to a positive emotion to neurotransmitter (PE-NT) matrix, wherein the PE-NT matrix indicates respective correspondences between a plurality of positive emotions and a plurality of neurotransmitters associated with one or more of the emotions of the plurality of positive emotions (claim 1);
determining one or more neurotransmitter deficiencies of the user, based on the determined one or more neurotransmitter activity levels of the user and one or more optimal neurotransmitter activity levels (claim 1); and
generating and displaying one or more suggestions for increasing the determined one or more neurotransmitter activity levels (claim 1).
Claim 18 is rejected under substantially the same basis as claim 1 above. See also U.S. Patent No. 12207927 claims 17, 27.
Claim 19 is rejected under substantially the same basis as claim 1 above. See also U.S. Patent No. 12207927 claims 33, 41.
Regarding claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 12207927 teaches wherein, for each categorization of the one or more activities from the user, the B-PE matrix indicates one or more values, each value of the one or more values corresponding to an emotion of the plurality of positive emotions that is associated with the categorization (claim 1; claim 11).
Regarding claim 3, U.S. Patent No. 12207927 teaches wherein the categorizations received from the user comprises at least one category selected from the group consisting of: biological basics, work and school, consumption, leisure, social, community service, religious, and spiritual (claim 7).
Regarding claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 12207927 does not explicitly teach wherein the categorizations received from the user comprises at least one subcategory of the selected at least one selected category. However, U.S. Patent No. 12207927 does teach different categorizations (claim 7) and further dividing into subcategory is an obvious duplication of parts; MPEP 2144.04. See also how claim 7 recites “social, community service, religious, and spiritual.” which can be different subcategories of each other.
Regarding claim 5, U.S. Patent No. 12207927 teaches wherein the determined one or more emotions comprises at least one emotion selected from the group consisting of: enthusiasm, sexual desire, pride, nurturant love, contentment, amusement, attachment love, pleasure, and gratitude (claim 8).
Regarding claim 6, U.S. Patent No. 12207927 teaches wherein for each emotion of the determined one or more emotions from the user, the PE-NT matrix indicates one or more values, each value of the one or more values corresponding to a neurotransmitter of the plurality of neurotransmitters that is associated with the emotion (claim 1 “PE-NT matrix indicates…”).
Regarding claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 12207927 teaches wherein applying the received one or more quantitative ratings received from the user to the PE-NT matrix comprises multiplying one or more of the one or more values by a quantitative rating of the one or more quantitative ratings received from the user for the emotion (claim 1 “multiplying”).
Regarding claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 12207927 teaches wherein the generated one or more suggestions for increasing the determined one or more neurotransmitters are generated by selecting one or more entries from a database containing a plurality of suggestions for increasing neurotransmitter levels (claim 4).
Regarding claim 9, U.S. Patent No. 12207927 teaches wherein the database containing a plurality of suggestions for increasing neurotransmitter levels is categorized based on one or more types of neurotransmitters (claim 5).
Regarding claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 12207927 teaches wherein the database containing a plurality of suggestions for increasing neurotransmitter levels is categorized based on an amount of increase in the neurotransmitter levels needed (claim 6).
Regarding claim 11, U.S. Patent No. 12207927 teaches further comprising receiving one or more lengths of time of the one or more activities performed by the user and determining the one or more neurotransmitter activity levels of the user includes applying the received one or more lengths of time of the one or more activities to the PE-NT matrix (claim 9).
Regarding claim 12, U.S. Patent No. 12207927 teaches wherein the one or more neurotransmitter activity levels include one or more levels associated with: dopamine, testosterone, serotonin, oxytocin, cannabinoids, and opioids (claim 10).
Regarding claim 13, U.S. Patent No. 12207927 teaches wherein the method comprises determining an overall return on happiness (ROH) score based on the determined one or more neurotransmitter activity levels (claim 12).
Regarding claim 14, U.S. Patent No. 12207927 teaches wherein the method comprises determining an optimal ROH score for the user (claim 13).
Regarding claim 15, U.S. Patent No. 12207927 teaches wherein the method comprises determining one or more ROH score deficiencies of the user, based on the determined ROH score and the determined optimal ROH score for the user (claim 14).
Regarding claim 16, U.S. Patent No. 12207927 teaches wherein determining the one or more neurotransmitter activity levels comprises, for each neurotransmitter of the plurality of neurotransmitters, summing the multiplied one or more values in the PE-NT matrix that correspond to the neurotransmitter (claim 15).
Regarding claim 17, U.S. Patent No. 12207927 teaches wherein determining the one or more neurotransmitter activity levels comprises, for each neurotransmitter of the plurality of neurotransmitters, multiplying the summed value from the PE-NT matrix by a duration of the one or more activities of the user to determine the neurotransmitter activity level for the neurotransmitter (claim 16).
Allowable Subject Matter with respect to 102/103
The prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed invention of independent claims 1, 18, and 19 when taken as a whole, comprising, in addition to the other recited claim elements, determining one or more emotions by applying the received one or more categorizations of the one or more activities performed by the user to a behavior-to-positive emotion (B-PE) matrix, wherein the B-PE matrix indicates respective correspondences between a plurality of activity categorizations and a plurality of positive emotions associated with one or more of the activity categorizations of the plurality of activity categorizations;
displaying, based on the determined one or more emotions, a graphical user interface configured to receive one or more quantitative ratings corresponding to each of the determined one or more emotions from the user;
determining one or more neurotransmitter activity levels of the user by applying the received one or more quantitative ratings received from the user to a positive emotion to neurotransmitter (PE-NT) matrix, wherein the PE-NT matrix indicates respective correspondences between a plurality of positive emotions and a plurality of neurotransmitters associated with one or more of the emotions of the plurality of positive emotions;
determining one or more neurotransmitter deficiencies of the user, based on the determined one or more neurotransmitter activity levels of the user and one or more optimal neurotransmitter activity levels; and
generating and displaying one or more suggestions for increasing the determined one or more neurotransmitter activity levels.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan T Kuo whose telephone number is (408)918-7534. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. PT.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
/JONATHAN T KUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights