DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the filing of 9-19-2025. Claims 1-2, 4 and 8-10 are pending and have been considered below:
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: storage, generator configured to, world production unit and output determiner 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.
It system claimed appears in Figure 1, where the controller includes a processor.
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 6-7 are canceled and therefore the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
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 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 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Ebrahimi et al. (“Ebrahimi” 20200122038 A1) in view of Maturana et al. (“Maturana” 7991602 B2) and Bolden (20180293050 A1).
Claim 1: Ebrahimi discloses an artificial intelligence system configured to determine an output to outside based on information input from the outside, the artificial intelligence system comprising:
a storage configured to previously store a data model imitating a human and a thought of a human; a generator configured to extract the data model from the storage and generate a human object capable of reproducing an action and a thought of a human (abstract, Paragraph 24, provides a model of rationality, to determine behavior for trait based planning Paragraph 37; traits for objects will determine action “carriable object”);
Ebrahimi discloses a world builder including a first platform and configured to construct a world in which an action and a thought of the human object are developed, the human object being disposed on the first platform (Paragraphs 28-29; provides modify/building a world for which the agent to operate in);
Ebrahimi however does not disclose the second platform nor
the external world reproduction unit configured to dispose the human object on the first platform and reproduce an external world, based on the information input from the outside;
and an output determiner configured to obtain an external situation by recognizing the external world reproduced on the first platform, dispose the human object on the second platform, and determine an output to the outside by manipulating the human object. Maturana is provided because it discloses an agent simulation environment, within that environment multiple simulations are utilized (first/second platforms) (Figure 11). The simulations provide simulation from physical (real) world/systems (Column 11, Lines 58-67). The agents are presented within the environments, and the simulation allows for the determination of behavior which are offered to physical/real system (Figure 11, Column 3, Lines 20-29 and Column 12, Line 55-Column 13, Line 19).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way providing multiple platforms/environments and agents within that environment of Ebrahimi. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality because it increases efficiency and reduces the burden of solution analysis for decision-making (Column 3, Lines 20-29).
Additionally, Ebrahimi may not disclose each feature below. Therefore Bolden is provided to disclose wherein the information input from the outside expresses the external world with an input sentence of natural language including a voice or a character string (Bolden: Paragraph 28; text string to perform action), the storage stores an object and a name of the object in association with each other (Bolden: Paragraph 78; names stored), and the external world reproduction unit generates the object based on the words of the input sentence and the object and the name of the object stored in the storage, and reproduces the external world by disposing the object on the first platform to understand meaning of the input sentence (Bolden: Paragraphs 28-31 and 78)environment/scene layouts produced in accordance with text input
However Bolden as mapped above discloses a natural language input which reproduces the environment from the understanding of the input.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way by providing a natural language produced environments to be utilized and incorporated with the environment of Ebrahimi. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality because it expands the interactions of the environment for a more robust system.
Claim 2: Ebrahimi, Maturana and Bolden disclose an artificial intelligence system according to claim 1, wherein the human object of each of a self and a partner is disposed on the first platform and the second platform, and the output determiner determines an output such that a thought of the human object of the partner is felt favorable (Ebrahimi: Paragraphs 22 and 24; the rationality model provides different outcomes for the environment (one rationale could be determining a favorable position, Maturana: Column 13, Lines 5-19; conflict resolution will provide a favorable solution).
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Ebrahimi et al. (“Ebrahimi” 20200122038 A1), Maturana et al. (“Maturana” 7991602 B2) and Bolden (20180293050 A1) in further view of Meuleau et al. (“Meuleau” 20200122039 A1).
Claim 4: Ebrahimi, Maturana and Bolden disclose an artificial intelligence system according to claim 1, however may not wherein the data model of the human has two types of desires, the two types of desires being a low level desire generated from body and a high level desire to achieve a socially valuable thing, and the output determiner determines an output such that the low level desire is suppressed and the high level desire is satisfied (Ebrahimi: Paragraph 24; provides a model of rationality). Meuleau is provided because it discloses an agent simulation environment, within the environment a model of rationality is also utilized (Paragraph 22). The system also implements a reward system for the agent behavior (Paragraphs 26, 29-30; reward system). This system would incentivize behavior to maximize rewards therefore low level/ small rewards will be suppressed to achieve higher desire/higher rewards.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way and provide multiple platforms/environments along with agents within an environment of Ebrahimi. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality because it reduces the burden of efficient solution analysis for decision-making (Column 3, Lines 20-29).
Claims 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Ebrahimi et al. (“Ebrahimi” 20200122038 A1), Maturana et al. (“Maturana” 7991602 B2) and Bolden (20180293050 A1) in further view of Buhmann et al. (“Buhmann” 20200184306 A1).
Claim 8: Ebrahimi, Maturana and Bolden disclose an artificial intelligence system according to claim 1, however may not explicitly disclose wherein the thought of the human object has positive and negative psychological states as numerical values, the positive psychological states are favorable psychological states, the negative psychological states are unfavorable psychological states, the output determiner determines the action of the human object based on the positive and negative psychological states when manipulating the human object on the second platform.
Buhmann is provided because it discloses an virtual agent simulation, and simulation provides psychological/emotion states which are positive and negative states, the states provide different actions for particular motivational fulfillment (Figures 5-6 and Paragraphs 40 and 56-59). The agents responses could be incorporated with the modified environment of Ebrahimi in order to determine actions.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way by providing emotional states for agents within the environment of Ebrahimi. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality because incorporating these features offer properties that a real human would offer in an interaction that make that interaction not only informative but also enjoyable or entertaining (Buhmann: Paragraph 1).
Claim 9: Ebrahimi, Maturana and Bolden disclose an artificial intelligence system according to claim 1, however may not explicitly disclose wherein the artificial intelligence system can make conversations with a human, the output determiner determines the output so as to make a partner of the conversations with positive psychological states
Buhmann is provided because it discloses an virtual agent simulation, and simulation provides psychological/emotion states which are positive, the states provide different actions for particular motivational fulfillment (Figures 5-6 and Paragraphs 40 and 56-59; conversation with human to provide motivational fulfillment). The agents responses could be incorporated with the modified environment of Ebrahimi in order to determine actions.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way by providing emotional states for agents within the environment of Ebrahimi. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality because incorporating these features offer properties that a real human would offer in an interaction that make that interaction not only informative but also enjoyable or entertaining (Buhmann: Paragraph 1).
Claim 10: Ebrahimi, Maturana and Bolden disclose an artificial intelligence system according to claim 1, however may not explicitly disclose wherein the output determiner selects an action to increase a social value of the human object
Buhmann is provided because it discloses an virtual agent simulation, and simulation provides psychological/emotion states which are positive and negative states, the states provide different actions for particular motivational fulfillment (Figures 5-6 and Paragraphs 40 and 56-59; conversation with human to provide motivational fulfillment). The agents responses could be incorporated with the modified environment of Ebrahimi in order determine actions.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way by providing emotional states for agents within the environment of Ebrahimi. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality because incorporating these features offer properties that a real human would offer in an interaction that make that interaction not only informative but also enjoyable or entertaining (Buhmann: Paragraph 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered. Regarding the 112 6th analysis, the current claim language still triggers the analysis and is therefore maintained.
Regarding the amendments, Bolden and Buhmann are incorporated to read on the new limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
20180157973 A1 [0037]
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e-mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERROD KEATON whose telephone number is 571-270-1697. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 5:00pm.
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 MICHELLE BECHTOLD can be reached at 571-431-0762. 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.
/SHERROD L KEATON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148
1-5-2026