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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of amended claims 30-42 and 48-49 in the reply filed on 8/22/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 43-47 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected computing a prediction error in an artificial nervous system G06N3/006, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/22/25.
Claim Objections
Claims 38 objected to because of the following informalities:
“determines the rate of change” should be “determines a rate of change”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a module for processing” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 30-31, 37, 41-42, 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn United States Patent Application Publication US 2014/0093849 in view of Dimitriadis United States Patent Application Publication US 2015/0235655.
Regarding claim 30, Ahn discloses a computer implemented emotion system of an artificial nervous system, for animating a virtual object, digital entity, or robot (Ahn, abstract, learning emotion of a robot), comprising:
a plurality of states, each state of the plurality of states representing an emotional state (ES) of the artificial nervous system (Ahn, para [0044], emotional space contains emotions of happiness, surprise, sadness, love, dislike, fear, and anger. Each emotion represents a state);
a module for processing a plurality of inputs (Ahn, para [0039], receives detected information, such as a facial expression, gesture and tone; Ahn, para [0050], emotion decision processing unit receives an emotional vector that is mapped from the internal state space (personality information) to the emotion space (emotion space)).
Ahn does not disclose:
wherein the module determines modality-independent activity patterns of the inputs over time, the processed plurality of inputs applied to the plurality of states,
wherein a respective current level of one or more of the plurality 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.
Dimitriadis discloses:
wherein the module determines modality-independent activity patterns of the inputs over time, the processed plurality of inputs applied to the plurality of states (Dimitriadis, para [0016], a current emotional state of the audio signal is tracked throughout each of the plurality of segments),
wherein a respective current level of one or more of the plurality states is affected by the application of the plurality of inputs (Dimitriadis, para [0016], For each segment, it is determined whether the current emotional state of the audio signal changes to another emotional state of the plurality of emotional states based on the emotional state and the confidence score of the segment) 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 (Dimitriadis, para [0083-84], The emotion state detection unit 512 tracks the current emotional states 514.sub.1,2, . . . ,n of the speech).
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]).
Regarding claim 31, Ahn in view of Dimitriadis discloses the emotion system of claim 30. Ahn further discloses wherein the ES of the artificial nervous system are competing ES (Ahn, para [0044], emotional space contains emotions of happiness, surprise, sadness, love, dislike, fear, and anger. Each emotion represents a state).
Regarding claim 37, Ahn in view of Dimitriadis discloses the emotion system of claim 30. Dimitriadis discloses wherein a module for processing a plurality of inputs integrates each of the plurality of inputs over time (Dimitriadis, para [0083-84], The emotion state detection unit 512 tracks the current emotional states 514.sub.1,2, . . . ,n of the speech over time).
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]).
Regarding claim 41, Ahn in view of Dimitriadis discloses the emotion system of claim 30. Dimitriadis further discloses including at least three states, representing three competing ES of the artificial nervous system (Dimitriadis, para [0063], with regards to fig 3, emotional state detection unit contains current emotional states 304 sub 1, 2,… n).
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]).
Regarding claim 42, Ahn in view of Dimitriadis discloses the emotion system of claim 41. Dimitriadis further discloses wherein less time is required to change from the 2nd state to the 1st state than the time required to change from 1st state to the 2nd state (Dimmitriadis, para [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]).
Regarding claim 48, Ahn in view of Dimitriadis discloses the emotion system of claim 30. Ahn further discloses wherein one or more ES are represented by a network state of the artificial nervous system (Ahn, para [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).
Regarding claim 49, Ahn in view of Dimitriadis discloses the emotion system of claim 30. Ahn further discloses wherein one or more ES are represented by a dynamic pattern of network activity of the artificial nervous system (Ahn, para [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).
Claim(s) 32-36, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn United States Patent Application Publication US 2014/0093849 in view of Dimitriadis United States Patent Application Publication US 2015/0235655 in further view of Bullivant United States Patent Application Publication US 2016/0180568.
Regarding claim 32, Ahn in view of Dimitriadis discloses the emotion system of claim 30. Ahn in view of Dimitriadis does not disclose the additional limitations of the present claim. Bullivant discloses wherein each of the plurality of inputs represents a neural input (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]).
Regarding claim 33, Ahn in view of Dimitriadis in further view of Bullivant discloses the emotion system of claim 32. Bullivant additionally discloses wherein a neural input is a sensory input provided to the emotion system(Bullivant, para [0225], sensor input).
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]).
Regarding claim 34, Ahn in view of Dimitriadis discloses the emotion system of claim 30. Ahn in view of Dimitriadis does not disclose the additional limitations of the present claim.
Bullivant discloses 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).
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]).
Regarding claim 35, Ahn in view of Dimitriadis in further view of Bullivant discloses the emotion system of claim 34. Bullivant additionally discloses wherein the perceptible format is one of a visual format and an auditory format(Bullivant, para [0241], outputs are visual, audible or graphic).
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]).
Regarding claim 36, Ahn in view of Dimitriadis in further view of Bullivant discloses the emotion system of claim 35. Bullivant additionally discloses wherein 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).
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]).
Regarding claim 40, Ahn in view of Dimitriadis discloses the emotion system of claim 30. Ahn in view of Dimitriadis does not disclose the additional limitations of the present claim.
Bullivant discloses wherein a module for processing a plurality of inputs 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).
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]).
Claim(s) 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn United States Patent Application Publication US 2014/0093849 in view of Dimitriadis United States Patent Application Publication US 2015/0235655 in further view of Miller IV United States Patent Application Publication US 2019/0325633.
Regarding claim 38, Ahn in view of Dimitriadis discloses the emotion system of claim 30. Ahn in view of Dimitriadis does not disclose the additional limitations of the present claim.
Miller IV discloses wherein a module for processing a plurality of inputs determines the rate of change of each of the plurality of inputs over time (Miller IV, para [0236], 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 the change of emotions. The motivation for doing so would have been to include a more efficient way for users to interact together in a virtual environment (Miller IV, para [0003]).
Regarding claim 39, Ahn in view of Dimitriadis discloses the emotion system of claim 30. Ahn in view of Dimitriadis does not disclose the additional limitations of the present claim.
Miller IV discloses wherein a module for processing a plurality of inputs determines the rate of change of each of the plurality of inputs over time, sums all the plurality of inputs together, and sums all of the plurality of inputs determined rate of change (Miller IV, para [0236], 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).
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 the change of emotions. The motivation for doing so would have been to include a more efficient way for users to interact together in a virtual environment (Miller IV, para [0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOPE C SHEFFIELD whose telephone number is (303)297-4265. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:00pm 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571)272-4057. 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.
/HOPE C SHEFFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2141