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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. “10-2023-0091857”, filed on July 14, 2023.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“generates” in the line 6 of the claim should be “generate”
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“nature” in the line 4 of the claim should be “the nature”
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“intensity of secondary emotion of each type” in the lines 2-3 of the claim should be “intensity of each type of secondary emotion”
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“intensity of secondary emotion of each type” in the lines 4-5 of the claim should be “intensity of each type of secondary emotion”
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“external background feeling” in the line 3 of the claim should be “an external background feeling”
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 limitations are “an external information recognition unit configured to recognize information of the artificial intelligence system”, “ a basic emotion generation unit configured to generates primary emotion and mood based on the recognized external information and a preset nature data of the artificial intelligence system”, “ a secondary emotion generation unit configured to generate secondary emotion based on the generated mood”, “an action tendency generation unit configured to generate action tendency for suggesting a direction of action decision of the artificial intelligence system based on the generated secondary emotion” in claim 1, 11-12.
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.
Claims 1, 11-12 invoke 112(f), and accordingly, claims 2-10 as they inherit the invocation.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the number of feedbacks" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-12 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Below is a claim-by-claim analysis.
Claim 1, 12
Step 1: Recites a system (claim 1) and a manufacture (claim 12). Therefore, they are directed to the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites:
An external information recognition unit configured to recognize external information of the artificial intelligence system
Recognition of external stimuli is a mental process that can be done is one’s head
a basic emotion generation unit configured to generates primary emotion and mood based on the recognized external information and a preset nature data of the artificial intelligence system
Generating emotion/mood based on external stimuli and preset disposition is an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind
a secondary emotion generation unit configured to generate secondary emotion based on the generated mood
Generating an emotion based on mood is an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind
an action tendency generation unit configured to generate action tendency for suggesting a direction of action decision of the artificial intelligence system based on the generated secondary emotion
Generating a proclivity to an action based on mood is an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. There are no further limitations of the claim.
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis mirrors
the analysis of step 2A prong 2.
Claim 2
Step 1: Recites a system. Therefore, it is directed to the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea it inherits from the claim it depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The remaining
limitations of the claim are directed at additional components of the abstract idea (“…generating mood by modeling one mood group among plurality…based on… external information and pleasure arousal dominance (PAD) values…”)
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis mirrors
the analysis of step 2A prong 2.
Claim 3
Step 1: Recites a system. Therefore, it is directed to the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea it inherits from the claim it depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The remaining
limitations of the claim are directed at additional components of the abstract idea (“…and a preset social norm…”)
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis mirrors
the analysis of step 2A prong 2.
Claim 4
Step 1: Recites a system. Therefore, it is directed to the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea it inherits from the claim it depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The remaining
limitations of the claim are directed at additional components of the abstract idea (“…calculates intensity of secondary emotion of each type…”, “…according to suitability evaluation result…”)
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis mirrors
the analysis of step 2A prong 2.
Claim 5
Step 1: Recites a system. Therefore, it is directed to the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea it inherits from the claim it depends on. It also recites:
a task generation unit configured to generate at least one task based on the action tendency generated by the action tendency generation unit
Generating a task is a type of mental process that can be done in one’s mind
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The remaining
limitations of the claim are directed at additional components of the abstract idea (“…and a relevance evaluation…”)
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis mirrors
the analysis of step 2A prong 2.
Claim 6
Step 1: Recites a system. Therefore, it is directed to the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea it inherits from the claim it depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The remaining
limitations of the claim are directed at additional components of the abstract idea (“…based on external background feeling…”)
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis mirrors
the analysis of step 2A prong 2.
Claim 7
Step 1: Recites a system. Therefore, it is directed to the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea it inherits from the claim it depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The remaining
limitations of the claim are directed at additional components that further expound on the abstract idea, as they are still mental processes and can be performed in the mind.
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis mirrors
the analysis of step 2A prong 2.
Claim 8
Step 1: Recites a system. Therefore, it is directed to the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea it inherits from the claim it depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The remaining
limitations of the claim are directed at additional components that further expound on the abstract idea, as they are still mental processes and can be performed in the mind.
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis mirrors
the analysis of step 2A prong 2.
Claim 9
Step 1: Recites a system. Therefore, it is directed to the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea it inherits from the claim it depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The remaining
limitations of the claim are directed at additional components of the abstract idea (“…generating mood by modeling one mood group among plurality…based on… external information and pleasure arousal dominance (PAD) values…”)
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis mirrors
the analysis of step 2A prong 2.
Claim 10
Step 1: Recites a system. Therefore, it is directed to the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea it inherits from the claim it depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The remaining
limitations of the claim are directed at additional components of the abstract idea (“…generating mood by modeling one mood group among plurality…based on… external information and pleasure arousal dominance (PAD) values…”)
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis mirrors
the analysis of step 2A prong 2.
Claim 11
Step 1: Recites a method. Therefore, it is directed to the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claims recite the following limitations:
recognizing external information of an artificial intelligence system
Recognition of external stimuli is a mental process that can be done is one’s head
generating primary emotion and mood based on the recognized external information and a preset nature data of the artificial intelligence system
Generating emotion/mood based on external stimuli and preset disposition is an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind
generating secondary emotion based on the generated mood
Generating an emotion based on mood is an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind
generating action tendency for suggesting a direction of action decision of the artificial intelligence system based on the generated secondary emotion
Generating a proclivity to an action based on mood is an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. There are no further limitations of the claim.
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis mirrors
the analysis of step 2A prong 2.
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.
Claims 1-2, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buhmann et al. (“US 11416732”, 2022), in view of Lee 1 (“KR 20200141863”, 2020).
Regarding claim 1, Buhmann teaches… system that generates an action tendency (Abstract, “system for simulating human-like affect-driven behavior”) by considering emotion and mood (references below) according to recognition of external information comprising:
an external information recognition unit configured to recognize external information of the… system (Column 3, Line 41-50);
a basic emotion generation unit configured to generates primary emotion and mood based on the recognized external information and a preset nature data1 of the… system (Figure 2, Figure 3)
a secondary emotion generation unit (Claim 1, “identify a second character assumed by the virtual agent, the second character having.. second emotions”) configured to generate secondary emotion based on the generated mood (Figure 32)
an action tendency generation unit (Figure 33) configured to generate action tendency (Figure 34) for suggesting a direction of action decision of the… system based on the generated secondary emotion5 (Figure 3).
Buhmann fails to teach an artificial intelligence system. However, Lee 1 teaches an artificial intelligence system (Page 1, Abstract).
Buhmann and Lee are both considered analogous to the invention because all are in the field of simulating human emotion and response in virtual systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Buhmann to incorporate the teachings of Lee, and incorporate the system within artificial intelligence apparatus. Doing so creates a more human and personable agent (see Page 6, Paragraph 1 of Lee 1, “it is possible to avoid feeling that the person talking to the conversation agent is talking with the machine or with someone other than the character”).
Regarding claim 2, Buhmann teaches said… system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the basic emotion generation unit generates the mood by modeling one mood group among a plurality of mood groups (Column 7, Lines 27-37, “baseline or default mood,… identified based on a mapping between the FFM personality traits of the character and the PAD space”) based on the recognized external information (Figure 3) and pleasure arousal dominance (PAD) values (Column 7, Lines 27-37) indicating nature6 of the.. system.
Buhmann fails to teach an artificial intelligence system. However, Lee 1 teaches an artificial intelligence system (Page 1, Abstract).
Buhmann and Lee are both considered analogous to the invention because all are in the field of simulating human emotion and response in virtual systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Buhmann to incorporate the teachings of Lee, and incorporate the system within artificial intelligence apparatus. Doing so creates a more human and personable agent (see Page 6-7 of Lee 1, “it is possible to avoid feeling that the person talking to the conversation agent is talking with the machine or with someone other than the character”).
Regarding claim 9, Buhmann teaches said… system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the basic emotion generation unit generates primary emotion by modeling at least one emotional element among a plurality of emotional elements (Figure 5) based on external physical stimulus of the recognized external information (Figure 3) and pleasure arousal dominance (PAD) values (Figure 5) indicating the nature.
Buhmann fails to teach an artificial intelligence system. However, Lee 1 teaches an artificial intelligence system (Page 1, Abstract).
Buhmann and Lee are both considered analogous to the invention because all are in the field of simulating human emotion and response in virtual systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Buhmann to incorporate the teachings of Lee, and incorporate the system within artificial intelligence apparatus. Doing so creates a more human and personable agent (see Page 6-7 of Lee 1, “it is possible to avoid feeling that the person talking to the conversation agent is talking with the machine or with someone other than the character”).
Regarding claim 10, Buhmann teaches said… intelligence system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the action tendency generation unit generates action tendency of the artificial intelligence system based on the generated secondary emotion and a preset action goal of the artificial intelligence system (Column 6, Lines 55-57, “emotional reaction planner7 does not operate in the 16-dimensional motivation space, but rather has a fixed goal in the State”)
Buhmann fails to teach an artificial intelligence system. However, Lee 1 teaches an artificial intelligence system (Page 1, Abstract).
Buhmann and Lee 1 are both considered analogous to the invention because all are in the field of simulating human emotion and response in virtual systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Buhmann to incorporate the teachings of Lee, and incorporate the system within artificial intelligence apparatus. Doing so creates a more human and personable agent (see Page 6-7 of Lee 1, “it is possible to avoid feeling that the person talking to the conversation agent is talking with the machine or with someone other than the character”).
Claim 11 is a method claim corresponding to the system claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Claim 12 is a computer-readable recording medium corresponding to the system claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Claims 3, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buhmann et al. (“US 11416732”, 2022), in view of Lee 1 (“KR 20200141863”) and in further view of Lee8 2 et al. (“KR 100825719”, 2008).
Regarding claim 3, Buhmann fails disclose the secondary emotion generation unit generates the secondary emotion based on the recognized external information, the generated mood, and a preset social norm of the artificial intelligence system.
However, Lee 1 teaches an artificial intelligence system (Page 1, Abstract). Lee 1 fails to teach the further limitations of the claim. However, Lee 2 teaches the secondary emotion generation unit generates the secondary emotion (Page 3, Paragraph 9, “second emotion generator 122 for generating a secondary emotion”) based on the recognized external information (Page 4, Paragraph 2, “the second emotion generating unit 122 reflects the external evaluation according to the list stored in the database”), the generated mood (Page 6, Paragraph 9, “5 illustrates the effect of positive mood, negative mood and time on emotion generation”), and a preset social norm (Page 4, Paragraph 8, “…emotions are strengthened by performing an action in the list of things and moral norms9”) of the…system.
Buhmann, Lee 1 and Lee 2 are all considered analogous to the invention because all are in the field of simulating human emotion and response in virtual systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Buhmann to incorporate the teachings of Lee 1 and Lee 2, and include a preset social norm within the artificial intelligence system. Doing so provides a smoother communication between robots and humans (see Page 2 Paragraph 2 of Lee 2).
Regarding claim 6, Buhmann teaches the basic emotion generation unit generates the mood by modeling mood group among the plurality of mood groups based on external background feeling10, the pleasure arousal dominance (PAD) values indicating the nature (see analysis for claim 2). Buhmann fails to teach the generated secondary emotion among the recognized external information, and an artificial intelligence system.
However, Lee 1 teaches an artificial intelligence system (Page 1, Abstract). Lee 1 fails to teach the further limitations of the claim. However, Lee 2 teaches the generated secondary emotion among the recognized external information (Page 3, Paragraph 9, “…includes… a second emotion generator 122 for generating a secondary emotion”, Page 3, Paragraph 10, “first emotion generating unit 121 generates an emotion according to the characteristic of the sensor when the information detected by the sensor unit”).
Buhmann, Lee 1 and Lee 2 are all considered analogous to the invention because both are in the field of simulating human emotion and response in virtual systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Buhmann to incorporate the teachings of and Lee 1 and Lee 2, and have the secondary emotion effect the generation of the mood from the basic emotion generation unit within an artificial intelligence system. Doing so provides a stronger capability of expressing the plurality of emotions similar to humans. (see Page 2 Paragraph 5 of Lee 2).
Regarding claim 7, Buhmann teaches the basic emotion generation unit selects one of the plurality of mood groups according to whether each of a "P" value, an "A" value, and a "D" value of the pleasure arousal dominance (PAD) values indicating the nature corresponds to a positive number or a negative number (Column 7, Lines 31-33, “Pleasure-Arousal-Dominance space (PAD space) where each dimension ranges from negative one to one (−1-1)”) , and models the selected mood group based on the external background feeling of the recognized external information, the pleasure arousal dominance (PAD) values indicating the nature (see claim 2 analysis).
Buhmann fails to teach the generated secondary emotion among the recognized external information, and an artificial intelligence system. However, Lee 1 teaches an artificial intelligence system (Page 1, Abstract). Lee 1 fails to teach the further limitations of the claim. However, Lee 2 teaches the generated secondary emotion among the recognized external information (see claim 6 analysis).
Buhmann, Lee 1 and Lee 2 are all considered analogous to the invention because all are in the field of simulating human emotion and response in virtual systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Buhmann to incorporate the teachings of Lee, and have the secondary emotion effect the generation of the mood from the basic emotion generation unit within an artificial intelligence system. Doing so provides a stronger capability of expressing the plurality of emotions similar to humans. (see Page 2 Paragraph 5 of Lee 2).
Regarding claim 8, Buhmann teaches the basic emotion generation unit models the selected mood group by calculating intensity of the selected mood group (Column 6, Lines 29-4811) based on the pleasure arousal dominance (PAD) values indicating the nature, a plurality of values (Equation 3-6) determined according to the external background feeling of the recognized external information (Figure 3).
Buhmann fails to teach an accumulated value of the number of feedbacks of at least one piece of secondary emotion associated with the selected mood group, and an artificial intelligence system. However, Lee 1 teaches an artificial intelligence system (Page 1, Abstract). Lee 1 fails to teach the further limitations of the claim. However, Lee 2 teaches an accumulated value of the number of feedbacks12 of at least one piece of secondary emotion associated with the selected mood group (Page 6, Paragraph 10, “Mood M (t) means the sum E .sub.K (t) of the levels of the secondary emotions shown”).
Buhmann, Lee 1 and Lee 2 are all considered analogous to the invention because all are in the field of simulating human emotion and response in virtual systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Buhmann to incorporate the teachings of Lee, and incorporate a feedback loop within the basic emotion generation unit within an artificial intelligence system. Doing so provides a stronger capability of expressing the plurality of emotions similar to humans. (see Page 2 Paragraph 5 of Lee 2).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buhmann et al. (“US 11416732”), in view of Lee 1 (“KR 20200141863”) and in further view of Lee 2 et al. (“KR 100825719”, 2008) and Kamiya et al. (“US 6175772”, 2001).
Regarding claim 4, Buhmann teaches generating the secondary emotion by determining secondary emotion13 of a highest intensity among a plurality of types of secondary emotion as the secondary emotion (Column 6, Lines 29-47).
Buhmann fails to teach a suitability evaluation result of an action of a user for the preset social norm and intensity of each mood group matching the secondary emotion of each type among intensities of the generated mood, and an artificial intelligence system. However, Lee 1 teaches an artificial intelligence system (Page 1, Abstract). Lee 1 fails to teach the further limitations of the claim. However, Lee 2 teaches the preset social norm (Page 4, Paragraph 8, “…emotions are strengthened by performing an action in the list of things and moral norms”) and intensity of each mood group matching the secondary emotion of each type (Page 4, Paragraph 7, “The second emotion generating unit reinforces the positive emotion when it corresponds to the list stored in the database unit”) among intensities14 of the generated mood.
Lee 2 fails to disclose the further limitations of the claim. However, Kamiya discloses incorporating a suitability evaluation result of an action of a user (Figure 215).
Buhmann, Lee 1, Lee 2, Kamiya are all considered analogous to the invention because all are in the field of simulating human emotion and response in virtual systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Buhmann to incorporate the teachings of Lee 1, Lee 2 and Kamiya, and have the method of evaluating user reactions to adjust its own emotions within an artificial intelligence system. Doing so creates systems that are more user friendly and satisfies them better (see Column 2, Lines 36-48 of Kamiya).
Regarding claim 5, Buhmann teaches a task generation unit configured to generate at least one task (Column 12, Line 3, “action scheduler”) based on the action tendency generated by the action tendency generation unit (Figure 216), as well as generating the secondary emotion by determining secondary emotion of a highest intensity among a plurality of types of secondary emotion as the secondary emotion (see claim 4 analysis).
Buhmann fails to teach the suitability evaluation result of the action of the user for the preset social norm and relevance evaluation of the action of the user for the generated task and based on the intensity of each mood group matching the secondary emotion of each type among the intensities of the generated mood, and an artificial intelligence system. However, Lee 1 teaches an artificial intelligence system (Page 1, Abstract). Lee 1 fails to teach the further limitations of the claim. However, Lee 2 teaches the preset social norm and intensity of each mood group matching the secondary emotion of each type among intensities of the generated mood (see claim 4 analysis)
Lee 2 fails to disclose the further limitations of the claim. However, Kamiya discloses incorporating a suitability evaluation result and relevance evaluation of the action of the user (Figure 217).
Buhmann, Lee 1, Lee 2 and Kamiya are all considered analogous to the invention because all are in the field of simulating human emotion and response in virtual systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Buhmann to incorporate the teachings of Lee 1, Lee 2 and Kamiya, and have the method of evaluating user reactions to adjust its own emotions within an artificial intelligence system. Doing so creates systems that are more user friendly and satisfies them better (see Column 2, Lines 36-48 of Kamiya).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEWOS MESFIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Cesar Paula, can be reached at (571) 272-4128. 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.
/MATTHEWOS MESFIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2145
/CESAR B PAULA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2145
1 Nature is a broad term with no specific definition in the art, that can be understood as baseline/preset values, found in Column 7, Line 33 (“…baseline or default mood…”) and/or the system’s knowledge base (Figure 3)
2 In figure 3, mood goes into active emotion. This can take place in the second character, thus being the secondary emotion unit.
3 The Behavior Manager in the figure
4 “Plans” arrow
5 This can take place for the second character, thus being the secondary emotion.
6 Baseline of system, as explained in footnote 1
7 Can also be interpreted as action tendency unit
8 Author name translated by examiner, due to lack of provided translation. It reads 이승익 on the document. Additionally, pdf of document is included in OC, and the citation pages correspond to that
9 Moral norms function the same as social norms as taught by the specification.
10 Under broadest reasonable interpretation, understood as synonym of recognized external information
11 Though the citation points to emotion intensity, “emotions can be mapped to the PAD space… they can be combined to describe an effective mood”, Column 7, Lines 51-54
12 Accumulated number of feedbacks understood as a summation under BRI
13 As shown above, secondary emotion is interpreted as emotion in the secondary character, which is taught by Buhmann
14 Mood has value of +1 to -1, equivalent to the sum of secondary emotions through Equation 5.
15 Suitability evaluation interpreted as evaluating pseudo emotion based on user reaction, as present in Figure 2
16 Behavior manager, interpreted as action tendency unit, feeds into action scheduler
17 Under BRI, suitability evaluation result and relevance evaluation can be interpreted as the same
Prosecution Insights