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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2025-09-02 has been entered. The status of claims is as follows:
Claims 1-11, 13-18, and 20 remain pending in the application.
Claims 1, 7, and 14 are amended.
Claims 12 and 19 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in response to rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the proposed amendments are analogous to Claim 3 of Example 47. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 3 of Example 47 recites a tangible benefit to the operation of a computer, in that a network communication device is made more safe and efficient by dropping malicious packets and blocking future traffic form a given address. Applicant's amendment, on the other hand, of "reorder the ranking of items to generate a fair ranking" which are "reduction of bias against a protected class" is merely an improvement to an abstract idea ("decision"). The abstract idea ("decision") is improved by making the "decision" reducing " bias". The mere recitation of a "decision making application" executed on a generic computer, amounts to nothing more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. The only thing that is improved is the abstract idea of a decision making process, wherein one re-ranks a ranked list to reduce bias. This is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology.
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 1-11, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, specifically mental processes and mathematical concepts, without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-6 are directed to a system, Claims 7-13 are directed to a method, and Claims 14-20 are directed to non-transitory computer-accessible storage media. Therefore, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 7, and 14 recite:
“evaluate each item of the plurality of items to determine a first likelihood of bias for the received ranking of the plurality of items, the first likelihood of bias comprising a likelihood of selection bias for the demographic group”; an “observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion” is a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
“perform a permutation test on the plurality of items with respect to the demographic group to determine a second likelihood of bias for the received ranking of the plurality of items, the second likelihood of bias comprising a likelihood of permutation bias for the demographic group”; performing a permutation test can be done by a human with pen and paper and is thus a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
“compare the determined first likelihood of bias and the determined second likelihood of bias to respective thresholds to generate an indicator of bias for the received ranking of the plurality of item, the indicator of bias indicating whether the ranking of the plurality of items includes one or more of selection bias and permutation bias”; making a comparison to generate an indicator of bias based on two likelihoods of bias is also an “observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion” and therefore a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
“compare the generated indicator to a modification criterion to determine that the generated indicator of bias exceeds a modification criterion”; comparing to make a determination is an “observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion” and therefore a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
“reorder responsive to the determination, the ranking of the plurality of items according to the modification criterion to generate a fair ranking comprises a reduction of the bias against the protected class in the received ranking ”; reorder a ranking to reduce bias according to a criterion is an evaluation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)) that can be performed by a human with pen and paper, and therefore the claim is still directed to a mental process
“the reordering minimizes a total variation distance to a uniform distribution over respective permutations of the plurality of items with respect to the demographic group”; reordering rankings by minimizing a total variation distance to a uniform distribution can be performed by a human with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are as follows:
“(Claim 1) a system: comprising at least one processor; a memory, comprising program instructions that when executed by the at least one processor to implement a bias mitigator for a decision making application, the bias mitigator configured to”; (Claim 14) one or more non-transitory computer-accessible storage media storing program instructions that when executed on or across one or more processors implementing a plurality of threads cause the one or more processors to implement a bias mitigator for a decision making application, performing”; these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as per MPEP 2106.05(f)
“receive a ranking of the plurality of items from a machine learning system of the decision making application, the machine learning system comprising learned bias with respect to a demographic group, wherein the received ranking comprises bias according to the learned bias of the machine learning system”; receiving an output from a machine learning system amounts to insignificant extra solution activity, mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g)
“send the fair ranking of the plurality of items to the decision making application” sending data over a network amounts to insignificant extra solution activity, mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g)
Step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are as follows:
“(Claim 1) a system: comprising at least one processor; a memory, comprising program instructions that when executed by the at least one processor to implement a bias mitigator for a decision making application, the bias mitigator configured to”; (Claim 14) one or more non-transitory computer-accessible storage media storing program instructions that when executed on or across one or more processors implementing a plurality of threads cause the one or more processors to implement a bias mitigator for a decision making application, performing”; these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as per MPEP 2106.05(f)
“receive a ranking of the plurality of items from a machine learning system of the decision making application, the machine learning system comprising learned bias with respect to a demographic group, wherein the received ranking comprises bias according to the learned bias of the machine learning system”; receiving an output from a machine learning system amounts to insignificant extra solution activity, mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g); furthermore, generic recitation of receipt of data amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as per MPEP 2106.05(d) (“i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”)
“send the fair ranking of the plurality of items to the decision making application” amounts to insignificant extra solution activity, mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g); furthermore, generic recitation of receipt of data amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as per MPEP 2106.05(d) (“i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”)
Dependent claims
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-11, 13, 15-18, and 20 are also determined to be rejected under 35 USC 101, as they are still directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 2, 8, and 15 recite: “apply a Bayes factor to each item of the plurality of items to determine the first likelihood of bias for the ranking of the plurality of items”; applying a Bayes factor is a mathematical concept, specifically a mathematical calculation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)).
Claims 3, 9, and 16 recite: “apply a Bayes factor to the ranking of the plurality of items to determine the second likelihood of bias for the ranking of the plurality of items”; applying a Bayes factor is a mathematical concept, specifically a mathematical calculation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)).
Claim 4 recites: “wherein generating the indicator of bias is based, at least in part, on a determination that the first likelihood of bias exceeds a selection bias threshold and a determination that the second likelihood of bias exceeds a permutation bias threshold”; making a determination is an “observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion” and therefore a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
Claims 10 and 17 recite: “wherein generating the indicator of bias is based, at least in part, on a determination that the first likelihood of bias exceeds a selection bias threshold”; making a determination is an “observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion” and therefore a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
Claims 11 and 18 recite: “wherein generating the indicator of bias is based, at least in part, on a determination that the second likelihood of bias exceeds a permutation bias threshold”; making a determination is an “observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion” and therefore a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
Claim 5 recites: “wherein the modifying preserves a permutation of the permutations with respect to the demographic group”; modifying a ranking can be performed by a human with pen and paper and is thus a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
Claims 6, 13, and 20 recite: “each item of the plurality of items comprises a feature including an amount of bias”; this limitation merely provides details on the evaluated items, and therefore the claim is still directed to a mental process.
“the generated indicator of bias for the received ranking of the plurality of items is determined with respect to the feature”; generating an indicator of bias based on a determination is also an “observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion” and therefore a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
Conclusion
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 ANN J LO whose telephone number is (571)272-9767. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Cordelia Zecher can be reached at 571-272-7771. 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.
/ANN J LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights