Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/247,332

METHOD, DEVICE AND SYSTEM FOR INTERACTION WITH THIRD PARTIES

Non-Final OA §101§102§112
Filed
Mar 30, 2023
Examiner
EBERSMAN, BRUCE I
Art Unit
3693
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Moßler GmbH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
354 granted / 553 resolved
+12.0% vs TC avg
Strong +58% interview lift
Without
With
+57.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 1m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
599
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
§103
46.5%
+6.5% vs TC avg
§102
8.1%
-31.9% vs TC avg
§112
13.5%
-26.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 553 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102 §112
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 This action is a non-final office action on the merits. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 USC 101 not applicable at this point in view of consultation. Claim Objections Claim 1 “the sense of humans” lacks antecedent basis Claim 13 – use of and/or and “for participation”, based on … “among other things”, …. These limitations are very broad, and/or is interpreted as “or” which is a choice, three and/or in the same claim tends to broaden any interpretation. For participation therein is intended use and “among other things” has minimal weight as it does not define what the other things are. The examiner is interpreting claim 13 to be an AI module/program with emotional abilities. Claim 12 has some of the same issues as claim 13 Claim 5 utilizes so many and/or that it has minimal value as claimed. Interpreted as one of the choices such as “information” Claim 11 likewise is written very generically “partially” could be a little bit, and/or is a choice….. etc. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) claim 1,….. it’s a method but no “ing” steps for any of the dependent claims…. A method requires steps whereas this claim appears to describe equipment and intended use. Claims 2-11 are similar in that they depend on a method claim with no method and further do not have any method steps. In regards to claims 12, 13, they depend on claim 1 which is not a correct method. These could be written as system or device claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 12, 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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. 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: AI Module, Module in claims 1-12 and 13 , . 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 § 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. Claim(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US Patent Publication to Feinson 20190236464 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 a computer-based artificial intelligence (Al) module and 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 participation therein and 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 (7), which is based, among other things, on fulfilling preferably parametrically predefinable needs (2) of the Al module. Fenison(0127 goal directed reasoning) 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 by external circumstances and/or information and/or input from third parties interacting with the Al module, and a corresponding assessment module , which assesses external circumstances and/or information and/or input from third parties interacting with the Al module and adapts the state of fulfillment of the need , being assigned to each need . Fenison(0185, interpreted broadly as information due to the repetitive and/or) 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) Conclusion 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 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 30, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12567064
AUTHORIZATION PREPROCESSING SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12567108
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MATCHING TRADING ORDERS BASED ON PRIORITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12505453
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MAKING PURCHASE PAYMENTS AFTER PAYMENT FAILURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12493883
SYSTEMS FOR DETECTING BIOMETRIC RESPONSE TO ATTEMPTS AT COERCION
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent 12488392
DATA PROCESSING METHOD, SYSTEM, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+57.7%)
4y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 553 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month