Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 12/21/2023. Claims 1-15 are pending in the case. Claim 1 is independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If itis determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant is advised to consult the 2019 PEG for more details of the analysis.
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Claims 1-15 are drawn to a computer implemented method, therefore each of these claim groups falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater; Step 1). Nonetheless, the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significant more (Step 2A, see below).
Regarding claim 1:
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “… wherein the fairness-accuracy curve comprises a plurality of fairness values corresponding to a plurality of accuracy values” and “determining confidence intervals for the plurality of fairness values of the fairness- accuracy curve, wherein a confidence interval is a range of expected fairness values for a fairness value corresponding to an accuracy value” are the abstract ideas of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “obtaining a machine learning model”, “obtaining a dataset for training the machine learning model to produce a trained machine learning model”, “estimating a fairness-accuracy curve of the trained machine learning model by training the machine learning model on the dataset” are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “machine learning model” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “computer” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
No, this limitation “obtaining a machine learning model”, “obtaining a dataset for training the machine learning model to produce a trained machine learning model”, “estimating a fairness-accuracy curve of the trained machine learning model by training the machine learning model on the dataset” are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “machine learning model” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “computer” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
Furthermore, regarding dependent claims 2-15 which are dependent on claim 1, the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more as highlighted below in the claim limitations by evaluating the claim limitations under Step 2A and 2B:
Dependent claim 2
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “wherein determining the confidence intervals comprises using calibration dataset, wherein the calibration dataset is disjoint from the dataset.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 3
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation, as directed to “a claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 4
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “wherein a ground-truth fairness-accuracy curve lies within the confidence intervals of the fairness-accuracy curve.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 5
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “wherein estimating the fairness-accuracy curve comprises utilizing the You-Only-Train-Once framework.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 6
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “wherein the method comprises dynamically estimating the fairness-accuracy curve during inference of the machine learning model. ” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 7
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “wherein the plurality of fairness values each represent a compromised fairness value depending on its corresponding plurality of accuracy values.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 8
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation, as directed to “a claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 9
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation, as directed to “a claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 10
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation, as directed to “a claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 11
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation, as directed to “a claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 12
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “wherein the fairness is at least one of: demographic parity, equalized opportunity, and equalized odds. ” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 13
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporate the abstract idea of independent claim.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No, this limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No, this limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Dependent claim 14
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporate the abstract idea of independent claim. Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No, this limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No, this limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Dependent claim 15
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporate the abstract idea of independent claim. Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No, this limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No, this limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
The dependent claims as analyzed above, do not recite limitations that integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. In addition, the claim limitations do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). Therefore, the claims do not recite any limitations, when considered individually or as a whole, that recite what the courts have identified as “significantly more”, see MPEP 2106.05; and therefore, as a whole the claims are not patent eligible.
As shown above, the dependent claims do not provide any additional elements that when considered individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified. Therefore, as a whole the dependent claims do not recite what the courts have identified as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite, when claim elements are examined individually and as a whole, elements that the courts have identified as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “To the Fairness Frontier and Beyond: Identifying, Quantifying, and Optimizing the Fairness-Accuracy Pareto Frontier”, Little et al, 5/31/2022
Referring to claim 1, Little discloses a computer implemented method, the method comprising:
obtaining a machine learning model; (page 2 of Little, machine learning model)
obtaining a dataset for training the machine learning model to produce a trained machine learning model; (page 2 of Little, “We are particularly motivated to define a model-agnostic measure that quantifies the fairness-accuracy tradeoff in a single metric in order for machine learning practitioners to easily compare existing bias mitigation strategies and choose hyperparameters that balance the tradeoff in a way suits their specific task.”)
estimating a fairness-accuracy curve of the trained machine learning model by training the machine learning model on the dataset, wherein the fairness-accuracy curve comprises a plurality of fairness values corresponding to a plurality of accuracy values; (page 4 of Little, as shown in figures, there is a fairness-accuracy curve with different datasets) and
determining confidence intervals for the plurality of fairness values of the fairness- accuracy curve, wherein a confidence interval is a range of expected fairness values for a fairness value corresponding to an accuracy value. (page 4 of Little, as shown in figures, there is a fairness-accuracy curve with different datasets and confidence intervals are a range of the fairness values, such as 70%-80% of fairness values of the X axis corresponding to accurate value of the Y axis)
Referring to claim 2, Little discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein determining the confidence intervals comprises using calibration dataset, wherein the calibration dataset is disjoint from the dataset. (pages 19-20 of Little, “split the data into training, validation, and test dataset.” Which means that there are different datasets that can be used to feed into the ML model)
Referring to claim 4, Little discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein a ground-truth fairness-accuracy curve lies within the confidence intervals of the fairness-accuracy curve. (page 31, B.2.2, “FairnessEO = 1 − |E[ˆY|A = 1,Y = 1] − E[ˆY|A = 0,Y = 1]|, where A is the protected attribute, Y is the ground truth label, and ˆY is the predicted label of a classifier.” Here, fairness values of the X axis, obtain ground-truth labels, which the fairness and accuracy correspond to each other on a curve (curve requires both values of X axis and Y axis))
Referring to claim 6, Little discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises dynamically estimating the fairness-accuracy curve during inference of the machine learning model. (page 4 of Little, as shown in figures, there is a fairness-accuracy curve with different datasets and confidence intervals are a range of the fairness values, such as 70%-80% of fairness values of the X axis corresponding to accurate value of the Y axis, hence the curve is dynamic as the X values move, the Y values moves as well)
Referring to claim 7, Little discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of fairness values each represent a compromised fairness value depending on its corresponding plurality of accuracy values. (the current Specification does not give “compromised” a specific meaning, under BRI, the Examiner will interpret the word to mean a biased value of fairness. Page 5 of Little, “H is any collection of models, Fairness(h) is any metric in [0,1] that is decreasing in the bias of model h according to standard fairness definitions [39], and Accuracy(h) is any measure of the performance of model h in [0, 1]”).
Referring to claim 12, Little discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein the fairness is at least one of: demographic parity, equalized opportunity, and equalized odds. (page 10 of Little, Equality of opportunity)
Referring to claim 13, Little discloses a data processing system comprising means for carrying out the method of claim 1. (same as claim 1)
Referring to claim 14, Little discloses a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1. (same as claim 1)
Referring to claim 15, Little discloses a computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1. (same as claim 1)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5 and 8-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
“Arbitrariness Lies Beyond the Fairness-Accuracy Frontier”, Long et al, 6/15/2023. Machine learning tasks may admit multiple competing models that achieve similar performance yet produce conflicting outputs for individual samples—a phenomenon known as predictive multiplicity. We demonstrate that fairness interventions in machine learning optimized solely for group fairness and accuracy can exacerbate predictive multiplicity. Consequently, state-of-the-art fairness interventions can mask high predictive multiplicity behind favorable group fairness and accuracy metrics. We argue that a third axis of “arbitrariness” should be considered when deploying models to aid decision-making in applications of individual-level impact. To address this challenge, we propose an ensemble algorithm applicable to any fairness intervention that provably ensures more consistent predictions.
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://;www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e- mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIMEI JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Mariela D Reyes can be reached at 571-270-1006. 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.
/HAIMEI JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights