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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant filed an amendment on 5/19/26. Claims 1, 5, 10, 12, and 13 have been amended and new claims 14-16 have been added. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendment, the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non persuasive. This action is a Final Rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: The term “pre-definable needs of the artificial soul” are generic. According the specification, they can be “state of charge of a battery, operating characteristics or utilization of product features” (0007), late in 0011, the soul might be fulling it’s own needs. If applicant desires a specific interpretation for the needs aspect then it may need to be defined in the claims in view of the specification because it appears various needs are contemplated. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 101 not applicable at this point in view of consultation.
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) s 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Patent Publication to Feinson 20190236464 in view of US Patent Publication 20190197112 to Kaplan
As per claim 1, Feinson discloses;
A method for interaction with third parties in the sense of humans and/or devices and/or computer-based systems, comprising the steps of: providing a computer-based artificial intelligence (AI) module and providing an input module and/or output module connected to the Al module, the input module and/or output module being integratable into a network for interaction of the Al module with third parties, Fenision(0017 for participation like a human with humans)
and decisions and output of the Al module being influenced by its emotional state, wherein the decisions and output of the Al module are based, at least in part, on fulfilling predefinable needs of the Al module. Fenison(0127 goal directed reasoning, in view of amendment, the examiner sees 0153, prior emotional needs in view of the objection above, need to maintain cohesive conversation, need to learn, “emotional priors”)
in regards to parameters that are definable by settings, Kaplan teaches what Feinson does not,
parametrically (0032, setting, to a default)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the robotic soul of Feinson with Kaplan’s setting for the motivation of creating computer system with “intelligence of a cyborg” (0001)
Claims 12 and 13 are similar to claim 1
As per claim 2 Feinson discloses; (Currently Amended). The method according to Claim 1, characterized in that the needs are determined or at least influenced by a preferably parametrically predefinable physicality of the Al module. Fenison(0137 emotional states)
As per claim 3 Feinson discloses;
The method according to . claim 1The method according to characterized in that the needs are determined or at least influenced by a preferably parametrically predefinable personality of the Al module. Fenison(0021, the AI can have a personality, 0022)
As per claim 4 Feinson discloses; The method according to Claim 3, characterized in that the personality of the Al module is determined or at least influenced by preferably parametrically predefinable values and rules . Fenison(0187, “or” is a choice…)
As per claim 5 Feinson discloses;
The method according to Claim 1, characterized in that each need may preferably be fulfilled independently of the others as a function of one or more of external circumstances and/or information and/or input from third parties interacting with the Al module, and a corresponding assessment module configured to assess, external circumstances and/or information and/or input from third parties interacting with the Al module and to adapt the state of fulfillment of the need, being assigned to each need. Fenison(0185, interpreted broadly as information due to the repetitive and/or, external inputs)
As per claim 6 Feinson discloses; The method according to Claim 1 characterized in that a need and/or the state of fulfillment of a need are/is determined or at least influenced by the history of the fulfillment of the needs and/or the history of the emotional state.
Fenison(0187, pre-training, or inputting information and learning are part of the process)
As per claim 7 Feinson discloses; The method according to Claim 1, characterized in that the needs may be weighted differently, it preferably being possible for the weighting to be parametrically predefinable and/or adaptable by the Al module. Fenison(0184, predefinable templates)
As per claim 8 Feinson discloses; The method according to Claim 1 , characterized in that an imaging module transfers the fulfillment of the needs into an emotional state , the transfer being determined or at least influenced by the personality and/or the virtual physicality and/or other external circumstances and/or information . Fenison(0186 emotional state)
As per claim 9 Feinson discloses; The method according to Claim 1, characterized in that the output of the Al module is implemented in the form of communication and/or interaction with third parties in the sense of persons, devices, and/or systems, voice output, a technical action, and/or the control of a technical system, of a device, or of a method. (0016 0021)
As per claim 10 Feinson discloses; The method according to Claim 1, characterized in that a differentiation is made, preferably as a function of the personality into an internal emotional state and an external emotional state , using a filter module , the external emotional state influencing the output of the Al module that is discernible by third parties, and the internal emotional state influencing the decisions that are not discernible by third parties.
(0020)
As per claim 11 Feinson discloses;. The method according to Claim 1, characterized in that the Al module has only partial access to the needs (2) and/or the state of fulfillment of its needs (2) and/or the virtual physicality (1) and/or the values and rules (3) and/or its personality (4) and/or the function of the assessment module (5) and/or the translation function of the imaging module (6) and/or the emotional state (7), and/or is able to only partially control same. Feinson(0094, high or low variables are attributed to various features so that the AI does not know everything about the person for example which makes it more human)
As per claim 14, Feinson discloses;
The method according to Claim 1, wherein the third parties include one or more of persons, devices, or computer-based systems. (one or more could be interact with one another, one or more servers etc. 0016)
Claims 15-16 are similar to claim 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant filed an amendment on 5/19/26. Claims 1, 5, 10, 12, and 13 have been amended and new claims 14-16 have been added. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendment, the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non persuasive. This action is a Final Rejection.
Claim Objections- moot.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).- moot
Claims 1-13 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feinson (US
Here, applicant arguments are as follows;
Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner. Applicant respectfully asserts that Feinson merely discloses "goal directed reasoning" of the Al module as follows:
[0124] "The system 100 may receive one or more of the following input types: 1) A question 2) A statement 3) An answer to a previous question. Each follows its own ruleset to formulate an output."
[0125] "Responding to Questions: When asked a question, the artificial intelligence entity's emotional priors (desire to answer accurately and impart novel information) dictate a response to the five types of questions:"
[0126] [...]
[0127] B) Inference Questions. Complex questions requiring backward chaining (goal- directed reasoning) by the system, utilize a procedure where the process constructs a hypothesis and works backward through its rules to test against that hypothesis.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully asserts that Feinson does not disclose
decisions/output being dependent on the emotional state and on needs of the Al module as required by independent claims 1, 12 and 13, but rather discloses how to follow a set of preset rules for responding to a complex question. This set of rules is independent from a simulated emotional state of the Al module. In addition, even if the Al entity's emotional priors (desire to answer accurately and impart novel information) would be understood as "needs" within the meaning of the present patent applications, Feinson does not describe these emotional priors as being parametrically predefinable.
Since Feinson does not teach all of the elements and/or limitations of independent claims 1, 12 and 13, Applicant respectfully asserts that the § 102 rejection thereof is improper and must be withdrawn.
Here, the examiner notes that the elements argued are based on the specification. For example “parametrically predefinable” is not claimed. Thus, the argument is not persuasive. It is noted that the “needs” aspect as claimed is “based at least in part” which could be a small amount. However, in view of the parametric element which the examiner finds to be settings of some sort in view of the specification, the examiner offers Kaplan. It is noted that the parametrically predefined values and rules are not clearly defined or “limited’ by the specification. It is further noted that in 0024-26 there are more specific elements but, embedding them into a tangible claim element may be more complicated. The applicant argument is partially non persuasive but in part moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cognitive Automation—Survey of Novel Artificial General Intelligence Methods for the Automation of Human Technical Environments IEEE 2012
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Modelling and Analysing Behaviours and Emotions via Complex User Interactions, ARXIV 2019
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 BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights