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 .
Response to Amendment
The following is in response to the amendment filed on March 23, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 30, 31, 37 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as being anticipated by Rudovic et al (“Personalized machine learning for robot perception of affect and engagement in autism therapy”).
With respect to claim 30:
A computer implemented emotion system of an artificial nervous system, for animating a virtual object, digital entity, or robot, comprising:
A plurality of states, each state of the plurality of states representing an emotional state (ES) of the artificial nervous system; (Fig. 1 Interaction Section, discloses a plurality of behaviors performed by the robot)
A processor configured to process a plurality of inputs, wherein the processor determines modality-independent activity patterns of the inputs over time, the processed plurality of inputs applied to the plurality of states; (Page 2 Right Column, discloses processing a plurality of inputs, wherein the inputs are independent of modality and are used to affect the robots behavior)
Wherein a respective current level of one or more of the plurality of states is affected by the application of the plurality of inputs and wherein the respective current level of one or more of the plurality states represents one of the active emotional states of the artificial nervous system, (Fig. 1 Perception Section, discloses the robot performing affect estimation based on the child affective cues and using that estimation the robot performing a predefined behavior)
Wherein the modality-independent activity patterns comprise at least one of a quick or sustained trigger regardless of a perceptual pathway; and (Page 2 Right Column, discloses the modality activity patterns being quick triggers such as head movement or body movement)
Wherein the animated virtual object, the digital entity or the robot is presented to a user via a user perceptible format. (Figure 1 Interaction Section, discloses the robot presents behaviors in a user perceptible format)
With respect to claim 31:
Wherein the ESs of the artificial nervous system are competing ESs competing for attention and trying to displace each other. (Fig. 1 Interaction Section, discloses the robots’ predefined behaviors and the behaviors being selected (competing) based on the inputs)
With respect to claim 37:
The processor integrates each of the plurality of inputs over time.
With respect to claim 41:
The emotion system of claim 30, including at least three states, representing three competing ES of the artificial nervous system. (Figure 1 Interaction Section, discloses at least three predefined behaviors)
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.
Claims 32-36 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudovic et al (“Personalized machine learning for robot perception of affect and engagement in autism therapy”) in view of Bullivant et al (US PG Pub 2016/0180568).
With respect to claim 32:
Rudovic does not appear to explicitly disclose:
Each of the plurality of inputs represents a neural input representing a simulated neurochemical or a sensory input and its intensity.
Bullivant teaches:
Each of the plurality of inputs represents a neural input representing a simulated neurochemical or a sensory input and its intensity. (Bullivant, para [0252], input into a neurobehavioral model).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to include inputs into a neural network. The motivation for doing so would have been to create a visual response that is believable to the user (Bullivant, para [0003]).
With respect to claim 33:
Rudovic does not appear to explicitly disclose:
A neural input is a sensory input provided to the system.
Bullivant teaches:
A neural input is a sensory input provided to the system. (Bullivant, para [0225], sensor input)
With respect to claim 34:
Rudovic does not appear to explicitly disclose:
Further including an output module that conveys one or more of respective current levels of the active emotional states of the artificial nervous system to a user in a perceptible format.
Bullivant teaches:
Further including an output module that conveys one or more of respective current levels of the active emotional states of the artificial nervous system to a user in a perceptible format. (Bullivant, para [0241], outputs are visual, audible or graphic).
With respect to claim 35:
Rudovic teaches:
The perceptible format is one of a visual format and an auditory format. (Fig. 1 Interaction Section, visual format)
With respect to claim 36:
Rudovic does not appear to explicitly disclose:
The perceptible format is a visual two-dimensional representation of at least a portion of a mammal model.
Bullivant teaches:
The perceptible format is a visual two-dimensional representation of at least a portion of a mammal model. (Bullivant, para [0243], human or human-like features).
With respect to claim 40:
Rudovic does not appear to explicitly disclose:
The processor integrates each of the plurality of inputs over time, sums all the plurality of inputs together, and sums integrations of all of the plurality of inputs.
Bullivant teaches:
The processor integrates each of the plurality of inputs over time, sums all the plurality of inputs together, and sums integrations of all of the plurality of inputs. (Bullivant, para [0260-261], time series activity used for training a learning model).
Claims 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudovic et al (“Personalized machine learning for robot perception of affect and engagement in autism therapy”) in view of Miller et al (US PG Pub 2019/0325633).
With respect to claim 38:
Rudovic does not appear to explicitly disclose:
The processor determines a rate of change of each of the plurality of inputs over time.
Miller teaches:
The processor determines a rate of change of each of the plurality of inputs over time. (Paragraph [236], rate of change of expressions on a face)
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the display to include a rate of change of emotions. The motivation for doing so would have been to include a more efficient way for user to interact together in a virtual environment. (Miller Paragraph [003])
With respect to claim 39:
Rudovic does not appear to explicitly disclose:
The processor determines the rate of change of each of the plurality of inputs over time, sums all the plurality of inputs together, and sums all the plurality of inputs determined rate of change.
Miller teaches:
The processor determines the rate of change of each of the plurality of inputs over time, sums all the plurality of inputs together, and sums all the plurality of inputs determined rate of change. (Paragraph [236], discloses if the speed of sweep is faster than the rate of change of expressions, the whole face (or at least a portion thereof) can have the previous expression before the new expression starts to be shown on the face)
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudovic et al (“Personalized machine learning for robot perception of affect and engagement in autism therapy”) in view of Dimitriadis et al (US PG Pub 2015/0235655).
Rudovic does not appear to explicitly disclose:
The less time is required to change from the 2ndstate to the 1ststate than the time required to change from 1ststate to the 2ndstate.
Dimitriadis teaches:
The less time is required to change from the 2ndstate to the 1ststate than the time required to change from 1ststate to the 2ndstate. (Paragraphs [0064, 67], temporal evolution between states is tracked between each state).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the analysis to include processing based on time and emotions. The motivation for doing so would have been for quality customer care (Dimitiadis, para [0006]).
Claim 48 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudovic et al (“Personalized machine learning for robot perception of affect and engagement in autism therapy”) in view of Anh et al (US PG Pub 2014/0093849).
With respect to claim 48:
Rudovic does not appear to explicitly disclose:
The one or more ES are represented by a network state of the artificial nervous system.
Anh teaches:
The one or more ES are represented by a network state of the artificial nervous system. (Paragraph [0075], The emotion learning unit 400 generates feedback information corresponding to an emotion vector, that is, one point existing on the emotion space 930, based on an emotion vector decided by the emotion decision processing unit 200 and information on the type of emotion received from the user input unit 500 and changes an emotion probability distribution using the feedback information).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the ES being represented by a network state. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow only for predefined states to be represented as emotional states.
With respect to claim 49:
Rudovic does not appear to explicitly disclose:
The one or more ES are represented by a dynamic pattern of network activity of the artificial nervous system.
Anh teaches:
The one or more ES are represented by a dynamic pattern of network activity of the artificial nervous system. (Paragraph [0082], The processed data can become an internal state input value. Furthermore, a dynamic emotional expression can be made by changing the emotion value group in response to the internal state input value).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MARIELA D REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-1006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am -5:00 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, David Wiley can be reached at (571) 272-3923. 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.
/Mariela Reyes/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights