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 .
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 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-11, 13-14, 17-18, 20, 25, and 27-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1,
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a computer implemented method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“identifying one or more samples in a set of data used to train a machine learning model having at least one attribute, wherein the set of data comprises unstructured text”
“generating one or more counterfactual samples for each of the one or more identified samples”
“calculating scores for the one or more identified samples based at least in part on output of the machine learning model with respect to the counterfactual samples, wherein the scores indicate a relative level of bias between the one or more identified samples corresponding to the at least one attribute”
“creating an enhanced set of data at least in part by supplementing at least a portion of the identified samples with the corresponding one or more counterfactual samples based on the calculated scores”
“supplementing the identified samples having scores above a threshold value with the corresponding one or more counterfactual samples”
“ranking the plurality of layers of the machine learning model based at least in part on a result of the determining, wherein the ranking identifies a relative contribution of each of the plurality of layers to the relative level of bias”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
The limitations:
“determining an impact of the one or more counterfactual samples relative to the corresponding identified sample by computing divergence values, for the one or more counterfactual samples and the corresponding identified sample, in internal representations comprising activation outputs generated during inference of each of a plurality of layers of the machine learning model”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instruction to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations:
“wherein the method is performed by at least one computing device”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“wherein the creating comprises controlling an accuracy of the machine learning model by…”
“retraining the machine learning model using the enhanced set of data, wherein the retraining comprises retraining a specified number of the highest ranked layers based on the determined impact, wherein the specified number is less than the total number of layers in the plurality of layers and locking the remaining layers of the plurality of layers”
As drafted, are additional elements that merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” or indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception and indications of a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2,
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a computer implemented method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein calculating the score for a given one of the identified samples is based on a comparison of the output of the machine learning model for the given sample with the output of the machine learning model for the corresponding one or more counterfactual samples”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4,
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a computer implemented method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e).
The limitations:
“wherein the threshold value comprises a tunable hyperparameter.”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5,
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a computer implemented method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein a given one of the identified samples is identified using a set of keywords associated with the at least one attribute that is generated based at least in part on a word embedding space”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6,
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a computer implemented method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein generating the one or more counterfactual samples comprises using the set of keywords to generate perturbations of the given identified sample”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 5.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 5.
Regarding Claim 8,
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a computer implemented method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e).
The limitations:
“wherein the at least one attribute is related to at least one of: gender, age, and nationality”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10,
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“identify one or more samples in a set of data used to train a machine learning model having at least one attribute, wherein the set of data comprises unstructured text”
“generate one or more counterfactual samples for each of the one or more identified samples”
“calculate scores for the one or more identified samples based at least in part on output of the machine learning model with respect to the counterfactual samples, wherein the scores indicate a relative level of bias between the one or more identified samples corresponding to the at least one attribute”
“create an enhanced set of data at least in part by supplementing at least a portion of the identified samples with the corresponding one or more counterfactual samples based on the calculated scores”
“supplementing the identified samples having scores above a threshold value with the corresponding one or more counterfactual samples”
“rank the plurality of layers of the machine learning model based at least in part on a result of the determining, wherein the ranking identifies a relative contribution of each of the plurality of layers to the relative level of bias”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
The limitations:
“determine an impact of the one or more counterfactual samples relative to the corresponding identified sample by computing divergence values, for the one or more counterfactual samples and the corresponding identified sample, in internal representations comprising activation outputs generated during inference of each of a plurality of layers of the machine learning model”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instruction to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations:
“A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computing device”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“wherein the creating comprises controlling an accuracy of the machine learning model by…”
“retrain the machine learning model using the enhanced set of data, wherein the retraining comprises retraining a specified number of the highest ranked layers based on the determined impact, wherein the specified number is less than the total number of layers in the plurality of layers and locking the remaining layers of the plurality of layers”
As drafted, are additional elements that merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” or indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception and indications of a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11,
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein calculating the score for a given one of the identified samples is based on a comparison of the output of the machine learning model for the given sample with the output of the machine learning model for the corresponding one or more counterfactual samples”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 10.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 10.
Regarding Claim 13,
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 10.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e).
The limitations:
“wherein the threshold value comprises a tunable hyperparameter.”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein a given one of the identified samples is identified using a set of keywords associated with the at least one attribute that is generated based at least in part on a word embedding space, and wherein generating the one or more counterfactual samples comprises using the set of keywords to generate perturbations of the given identified sample”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 10.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 10.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a system comprising memory and a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“identify one or more samples in a set of data used to train a machine learning model having at least one attribute, wherein the set of data comprises unstructured text”
“generate one or more counterfactual samples for each of the one or more identified samples”
“calculate scores for the one or more identified samples based at least in part on output of the machine learning model with respect to the counterfactual samples, wherein the scores indicate a relative level of bias between the one or more identified samples corresponding to the at least one attribute”
“create an enhanced set of data at least in part by supplementing at least a portion of the identified samples with the corresponding one or more counterfactual samples based on the calculated scores”
“supplementing the identified samples having scores above a threshold value with the corresponding one or more counterfactual samples”
“rank the plurality of layers of the machine learning model based at least in part on a result of the determining, wherein the ranking identifies a relative contribution of each of the plurality of layers to the relative level of bias”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
The limitations:
“determine an impact of the one or more counterfactual samples relative to the corresponding identified sample by computing divergence values, for the one or more counterfactual samples and the corresponding identified sample, in internal representations comprising activation outputs generated during inference of each of a plurality of layers of the machine learning model”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instruction to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations:
“A system comprising: a memory configured to store program instructions; and at least one processor operably coupled to the memory to execute the program instructions”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“wherein the creating comprises controlling an accuracy of the machine learning model by…”
“retrain the machine learning model using the enhanced set of data, wherein the retraining comprises retraining a specified number of the highest ranked layers based on the determined impact, wherein the specified number is less than the total number of layers in the plurality of layers and locking the remaining layers of the plurality of layers”
As drafted, are additional elements that merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” or indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception and indications of a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 18,
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a system comprising memory and a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein calculating the score for a given one of the identified samples is based on a comparison of the output of the machine learning model for the given sample with the output of the machine learning model for the corresponding one or more counterfactual samples”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 17.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 17.
Regarding Claim 20,
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to a system comprising memory and a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 17.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e).
The limitations:
“wherein the threshold value comprises a tunable hyperparameter.”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 25,
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 25 is directed to a system comprising memory and a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein a given one of the identified samples is identified using a set of keywords associated with the at least one attribute that is generated based at least in part on a word embedding space, and wherein generating the one or more counterfactual samples comprises using the set of keywords to generate perturbations of the given identified sample”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 17.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 17.
Regarding Claim 27,
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 27 is directed to a system comprising memory and a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 17.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e).
The limitations:
“wherein the at least one attribute is related to at least one of: gender, age, and nationality”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 28,
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 28 is directed to a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 10.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e).
The limitations:
“wherein the at least one attribute is related to at least one of: gender, age, and nationality”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 29,
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 29 is directed to a computer implemented method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the divergence values are computed based on cosine similarity between the internal representations for the identified sample and the corresponding one or more counterfactual samples at each of the plurality of layers”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 30,
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 30 is directed to a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the divergence values are computed based on cosine similarity between the internal representations for the identified sample and the corresponding one or more counterfactual samples at each of the plurality of layers”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 10.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 10.
Regarding Claim 31,
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 31 is directed to a system comprising memory and a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the divergence values are computed based on cosine similarity between the internal representations for the identified sample and the corresponding one or more counterfactual samples at each of the plurality of layers”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 17.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 17.
Regarding Claim 32,
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 32 is directed to a computer implemented method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e) or mere instruction to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the number of the highest ranked layers corresponds to a top-k selection”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
The limitations:
“wherein the retraining comprises locking each of the plurality of layers other than the top-k ranked layers”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way or mere instructions to apply an exception. Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 33,
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 33 is directed to a computer implemented method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein ranking the plurality of layers comprises ranking each layer for its contribution towards the relative level of bias based on the computed divergence values”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection applied under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant firstly asserts that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, and even assuming they did, the claims would be integrated into a practical application because the claims provide an improvement in identifying and mitigating bias in machine learning models while maintaining accuracy (“Remarks”, Page 12). Applicant further asserts that the “retraining” step is similar to Desjardins (“Remarks”, Page 13). Applicant further asserts that “locking the remaining layers step” is also similar to Desjardins, and the combined features integrate the claims into a practical application of preserving model accuracy while reducing bias (“Remarks”, Page 13).
However, the claims recite at least the abstract ideas of “calculating scores…”, “creating an enhanced set of data…”, “ranking layers…”, and “determining an impact...”, therefore, the claims recite at least an abstract idea. The MPEP notes that it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Therefore, even if the claims did recite an improvement, it would be an improvement in the abstract idea of “calculating scores…”, “creating an enhanced set of data…”, “ranking layers…”, and “determining an impact...”.
Further, Desjardins provided a specific training strategy that allows the model to preserve performance on earlier tasks even as it learns new ones, while the current claims merely employ well-known training techniques at a high level. Additionally, the amended independent claims, as a whole, are not directed to the retraining, but rather to the abstract ideas of creating an enhanced training dataset and ranking layers. As discussed above in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1 above, the retraining step corresponds to a mere field of use of the judicial exception, as the claim as a whole includes using the abstract ideas, such as the creating of the enhanced dataset and the ranking of layers, to perform the retraining.
Therefore, the claims, as written, remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding the rejection applied under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s amendments overcome the rejection.
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 KURT NICHOLAS PRESSLY whose telephone number is (703)756-4639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. 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.
/KURT NICHOLAS PRESSLY/Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights