DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 9/23/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 17, and 20 are independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 16-17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “effectiveness of the two” where “effectiveness of each of the two” was apparently intended.
Claim 16 recites “are associated” where “are each associated” was apparently intended.
Claim 17 recites “displayed” where “displaying” was apparently intended.
Claim 20 recites “instructions execute” where “instructions to execute” was apparently intended.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 “two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms, each of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms designed to independently remove AI bias from the AI model” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Yes, the limitation “two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms, each of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms designed to independently remove AI bias from the AI 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 Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “accessing by a computing device an AI model” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, the limitation “executing by the computing device [algorithms]” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “executing by the computing device [algorithms]” 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. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “requesting display to a user results of execution of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “requesting display to a user results of execution of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms” 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. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “receiving a selection from the user of one or more bias mitigation algorithms for use with the AI model” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “receiving a selection from the user of one or more bias mitigation algorithms for use with the AI model” 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. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “executing the selected one or more bias mitigation algorithms to correct bias in the AI model” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “executing the selected one or more bias mitigation algorithms to correct bias in the AI model” 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. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “accessing by a computing device an AI model” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
No, the limitation “executing by the computing device [algorithms]” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “executing by the computing device [algorithms]” 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “requesting display to a user results of execution of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “requesting display to a user results of execution of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms” 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “receiving a selection from the user of one or more bias mitigation algorithms for use with the AI model” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “receiving a selection from the user of one or more bias mitigation algorithms for use with the AI model” 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “executing the selected one or more bias mitigation algorithms to correct bias in the AI model” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “executing the selected one or more bias mitigation algorithms to correct bias in the AI model” 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 2:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 each of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms is associated with exactly one bias mitigation strategy type of a plurality of available bias mitigation strategy types” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Yes, the limitation “wherein each of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms is associated with exactly one bias mitigation strategy type of a plurality of available bias mitigation strategy types” 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 Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 3:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 available bias mitigation strategy types include pre-processing mitigation, in-processing mitigation, and post-processing mitigation” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the available bias mitigation strategy types include pre-processing mitigation, in-processing mitigation, and post-processing mitigation” 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 Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 4:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
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, the limitation “accessing by the computing device training data used to train the AI model” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “accessing by the computing device training data used to train the AI model” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 5:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 “profiling [] one or more protected attributes in the training data” 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 Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “[profiling] by the computing device” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “[profiling] by the computing device” 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. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “[profiling] by the computing device” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “[profiling] by the computing device” 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 6:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 “generating a statistical distribution of training data” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Yes, the limitation “generating a statistical distribution of training data” 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 Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 7:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 statistical distribution of training data is used to find a correlation between protected attributes and non-protected attributes” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the statistical distribution of training data is used to find a correlation between protected attributes and non-protected attributes” 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).
Yes, the limitation “the correlation is used to identify attributes in the training data that lead to indirect bias” 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 Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 8:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 “determining whether bias exists in the AI model via utilization of one or more protected attributes” 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 Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “[attributes] selected by a user via a computer interface” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “[attributes] selected by a user via a computer interface” 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. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “[attributes] selected by a user via a computer interface” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “[attributes] selected by a user via a computer interface” 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 9:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 “determining whether bias exists in the AI model via utilization of one or more privileged or unprivileged group descriptions” 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 Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “[descriptions] selected by the user via the computer interface” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “[descriptions] selected by the user via the computer interface” 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. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “[descriptions] selected by the user via the computer interface” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “[descriptions] selected by the user via the computer interface” 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 10:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
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, the limitation “wherein the computing device is executing a machine learning pipeline” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “wherein the computing device is executing a machine learning pipeline” 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. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “wherein the computing device is executing a machine learning pipeline” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the computing device is executing a machine learning pipeline” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “wherein the computing device is executing a machine learning pipeline” 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “wherein the computing device is executing a machine learning pipeline” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 11:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 results of execution of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms include an independent effectiveness of each of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the results of execution of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms include an independent effectiveness of each of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms” 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 Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 12:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 independent effectiveness of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms is associated with a minimum accuracy impact or a maximum fairness impact” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the independent effectiveness of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms is associated with a minimum accuracy impact or a maximum fairness impact” 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 Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 13:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 “generating [] a scorecard summarizing results of removal of AI bias from the AI model and displaying baseline results” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Yes, the limitation “generating [] a scorecard summarizing results of removal of AI bias from the AI model and displaying baseline results” 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 Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “after executing the selected one or more bias mitigation algorithms, [] displaying [a scorecard]” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “after executing the selected one or more bias mitigation algorithms, [] displaying [a scorecard]” 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. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “after executing the selected one or more bias mitigation algorithms, [] displaying [a scorecard]” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “after executing the selected one or more bias mitigation algorithms, [] displaying [a scorecard]” 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 14:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 scorecard is based on a performance metric, the performance metric used to measure success of removal of bias from the AI model” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the scorecard is based on a performance metric, the performance metric used to measure success of removal of bias from the AI 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 Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 15:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
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, the limitation “wherein the performance metric is displayed to the user via the computer interface” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “wherein the performance metric is displayed to the user via the computer interface” 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. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the performance metric is displayed to the user via the computer interface” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “wherein the performance metric is displayed to the user via the computer interface” 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 16:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 selected one or more bias mitigation algorithms are associated with exactly one bias mitigation strategy type of a plurality of bias mitigation strategy types” 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).
Yes, the limitation “the scorecard reflects which bias mitigation strategy type is associated with each grade of a plurality of grades in the scorecard” 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 Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 17:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 “two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms in a machine learning pipeline, a result of a first independent bias mitigation algorithm used as an input to a subsequent independent bias mitigation algorithm” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Yes, the limitation “two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms in a machine learning pipeline, a result of a first independent bias mitigation algorithm used as an input to a subsequent independent bias mitigation algorithm” 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 Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “accessing by a computing device an AI model” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, the limitation “executing by the computing device [algorithms]” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “executing by the computing device [algorithms]” 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. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “requesting display to a user a result of execution of the machine learning pipeline, the result of execution of machine learning pipeline including a scorecard summarizing results of removal of AI bias from the AI model” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “requesting display to a user a result of execution of the machine learning pipeline, the result of execution of machine learning pipeline including a scorecard summarizing results of removal of AI bias from the AI model” 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. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “receiving a selection from a user of one or more new independent bias mitigation algorithms to modify the machine learning pipeline” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “receiving a selection from a user of one or more new independent bias mitigation algorithms to modify the machine learning pipeline” 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. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “executing by the computing device a modified machine learning pipeline based on the selection from the user” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “executing by the computing device a modified machine learning pipeline based on the selection from the user” 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. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “displayed to the user an updated scorecard based on the modified machine learning pipeline” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “displayed to the user an updated scorecard based on the modified machine learning pipeline” 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. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “accessing by a computing device an AI model” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
No, the limitation “executing by the computing device [algorithms]” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “executing by the computing device [algorithms]” 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “requesting display to a user a result of execution of the machine learning pipeline, the result of execution of machine learning pipeline including a scorecard summarizing results of removal of AI bias from the AI model” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “requesting display to a user a result of execution of the machine learning pipeline, the result of execution of machine learning pipeline including a scorecard summarizing results of removal of AI bias from the AI model” 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “receiving a selection from a user of one or more new independent bias mitigation algorithms to modify the machine learning pipeline” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “receiving a selection from a user of one or more new independent bias mitigation algorithms to modify the machine learning pipeline” 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “executing by the computing device a modified machine learning pipeline based on the selection from the user” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “executing by the computing device a modified machine learning pipeline based on the selection from the user” 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “displayed to the user an updated scorecard based on the modified machine learning pipeline” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “displayed to the user an updated scorecard based on the modified machine learning pipeline” 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 18:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 each of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms is associated with exactly one bias mitigation strategy type of a plurality of bias mitigation strategy types” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Yes, the limitation “wherein each of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms is associated with exactly one bias mitigation strategy type of a plurality of bias mitigation strategy types” 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 Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 19:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 plurality of bias mitigation strategy types includes selectively two or more of the following: pre-processing mitigation, in-processing mitigation, and post-processing mitigation” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the plurality of bias mitigation strategy types includes selectively two or more of the following: pre-processing mitigation, in-processing mitigation, and post-processing mitigation” 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 Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 20:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
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 “two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms, each of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms designed to independently remove AI bias from the AI model” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Yes, the limitation “two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms, each of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms designed to independently remove AI bias from the AI 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 Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “one or more computer processors” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “one or more computer-readable storage media” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “program instructions stored on the computer-readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more processors” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “program instructions to access an AI model” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, the limitation “program instructions to execute [algorithms]” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “program instructions to execute [algorithms]” 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. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “program instructions to request display to a user results of execution of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “program instructions to request display to a user results of execution of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms” 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. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “program instructions to receive a selection from the user of one or more bias mitigation algorithms for use with the AI model” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “program instructions to receive a selection from the user of one or more bias mitigation algorithms for use with the AI model” 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. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “program instructions execute the selected one or more bias mitigation algorithms to correct bias in the AI model” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “program instructions execute the selected one or more bias mitigation algorithms to correct bias in the AI model” 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. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “one or more computer processors” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “one or more computer-readable storage media” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “program instructions stored on the computer-readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more processors” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “program instructions to access an AI model” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
No, the limitation “program instructions to execute [algorithms]” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “program instructions to execute [algorithms]” 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “program instructions to request display to a user results of execution of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “program instructions to request display to a user results of execution of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms” 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “program instructions to receive a selection from the user of one or more bias mitigation algorithms for use with the AI model” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “program instructions to receive a selection from the user of one or more bias mitigation algorithms for use with the AI model” 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “program instructions execute the selected one or more bias mitigation algorithms to correct bias in the AI model” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “program instructions execute the selected one or more bias mitigation algorithms to correct bias in the AI model” 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Vasconcelos et al. (US 2020/0082299 A1, hereinafter Vasconcelos) in view of Koch et al. (US 2018/0240041 A1, hereinafter Koch).
As to independent claim 1, Vasconcelos teaches a method using a computing device to automatically remove AI bias associated with an Al model, the method comprising:
accessing by a computing device an AI model (“evaluate various models 203 stored in the model repository 204,” paragraph 0035 lines 8-9);
executing by the computing device two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms, each of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms designed to independently remove AI bias from the AI model (“The audit server 220 includes an audit engine 232 that is operative to take a multi-dimensional approach to the different contributing factors of bias in a automated decision making system that uses machine learning, to identify bias and/or provide bias mitigation therefor. To that end, the audit engine 232 is configured to evaluate the training data 205 from the training data repository 210 to provide mitigating options for the pre-processing stage, evaluate various models 203 stored in the model repository 204 to provide mitigating options for the processing stage, and evaluate outputs of different models to provide mitigating options for the post-processing stage. Significantly, the options provided for each stage are evaluated based on a multi-dimensional approach to the contributing factors of bias,” paragraph 0035 lines 1-14);
requesting (“the rule set, which is received by the audit engine 232 from the rules database 214, may provide bias threshold limits for each contributing factor of bias and/or automated decision-making system 200. The rule set may also provide cost limits in mitigating each contributing factor of bias and/or in aggregate for the system 200,” paragraph 0042 lines 4-9) [] results of execution of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms (“table 500 illustrates the options available for each mitigation stage, the bias immunity/mitigation, and cost,” paragraph 0063 lines 17-19);
receiving a selection [] of one or more bias mitigation algorithms for use with the AI model (“the audit engine block 240 takes a holistic view of the bias mitigation system to find a combination of mitigation measures that is of lowest cost, while being within a predetermined threshold system bias immunity,” paragraph 0066 lines 16-20); and
executing the selected one or more bias mitigation algorithms to correct bias in the Al model (“Upon optimizing the system 200 via a multi-dimensional approach to the pre-processing, processing, and post-processing stages to mitigate bias, the system 200 can then be used to process test data 212 in a computationally efficient way, while maintaining the bias level below a predetermined threshold,” paragraph 0041 lines 1-6).
Vasconcelos does not appear to expressly teach a method comprising:
[requesting] display to a user [results]; and
[receiving a selection] from the user.
Koch teaches a method comprising:
requesting display to a user results (“In an operation 530, tuning evaluation results are accessed. For example, an indicator may be received that indicates that the tuning process is complete. For example, one or more of the output tables may be presented on display 216 when the tuning process is complete,” paragraph 0147 lines 1-5); and
receiving a selection from the user (“In an operation 532, the user can select hyperparameters from the accessed tuning evaluation results. For example, the user can select the hyperparameters included in the ‘Best Configuration’ output table. As another option, the user can select a hyperparameter configuration included in the ‘Tuner Results’ output table that is less complex, but provides a similar objective function value in comparison to the hyperparameters included in the ‘Best Configuration’ output table,” paragraph 0148 lines 1-9).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the results selection of Vasconcelos to comprise the user interface of Koch. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely allowing a user to select the option (“In an operation 532, the user can select hyperparameters from the accessed tuning evaluation results. For example, the user can select the hyperparameters included in the ‘Best Configuration’ output table. As another option, the user can select a hyperparameter configuration included in the ‘Tuner Results’ output table that is less complex, but provides a similar objective function value in comparison to the hyperparameters included in the ‘Best Configuration’ output table,” Koch paragraph 0148 lines 1-9). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vasconcelos/Koch further teaches a method wherein each of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms is associated with exactly one bias mitigation strategy type of a plurality of available bias mitigation strategy types (“The audit server 220 includes an audit engine 232 that is operative to take a multi-dimensional approach to the different contributing factors of bias in a automated decision making system that uses machine learning, to identify bias and/or provide bias mitigation therefor. To that end, the audit engine 232 is configured to evaluate the training data 205 from the training data repository 210 to provide mitigating options for the pre-processing stage, evaluate various models 203 stored in the model repository 204 to provide mitigating options for the processing stage, and evaluate outputs of different models to provide mitigating options for the post-processing stage. Significantly, the options provided for each stage are evaluated based on a multi-dimensional approach to the contributing factors of bias,” Vasconcelos paragraph 0035 lines 1-14).
As to dependent claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Vasconcelos/Koch further teaches a method wherein the available bias mitigation strategy types include pre-processing mitigation, in-processing mitigation, and post-processing mitigation (“The audit server 220 includes an audit engine 232 that is operative to take a multi-dimensional approach to the different contributing factors of bias in a automated decision making system that uses machine learning, to identify bias and/or provide bias mitigation therefor. To that end, the audit engine 232 is configured to evaluate the training data 205 from the training data repository 210 to provide mitigating options for the pre-processing stage, evaluate various models 203 stored in the model repository 204 to provide mitigating options for the processing stage, and evaluate outputs of different models to provide mitigating options for the post-processing stage. Significantly, the options provided for each stage are evaluated based on a multi-dimensional approach to the contributing factors of bias,” Vasconcelos paragraph 0035 lines 1-14).
As to dependent claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vasconcelos/Koch further teaches a method comprising accessing by the computing device training data used to train the AI model (“the audit engine 232 is configured to evaluate the training data 205 from the training data repository 210,” Vasconcelos paragraph 0035 lines 5-7).
As to dependent claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Vasconcelos/Koch further teaches a method comprising profiling by the computing device one or more protected attributes in the training data (“the audit engine block 320 identifies a list of sensitive attributes for each contributing factor of bias or the source 301 in aggregate,” Vasconcelos paragraph 0047 lines 8-10).
As to dependent claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Vasconcelos/Koch further teaches a method wherein profiling by the computing device one or more protected attributes in the training data includes generating a statistical distribution of training data (“the statistical imparity (i.e., bias) is the difference between the probability that a random individual drawn from S is labeled 1 and the probability that a random individual from the complement SC is labeled 1. The probability is taken both over the distribution D and the random choices made by the algorithm. It calculates the difference that the majority and protected classes (e.g., having sensitive attribute) get a particular outcome. When that difference is small, the classifier has “statistical parity,” i.e. to conforms to the notion of fairness, and is therefore considered not to be biased,” Vasconcelos paragraph 0055 lines 1-11).
As to dependent claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Vasconcelos/Koch further teaches a method wherein the statistical distribution of training data is used to find a correlation between protected attributes and non-protected attributes, and the correlation is used to identify attributes in the training data that lead to indirect bias (“Indirect discrimination can be identified by the data bias identification module 322 when decisions are made based on non-sensitive attributes that are strongly correlated with biased sensitive ones,” Vasconcelos paragraph 0057 lines 5-8).
As to dependent claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vasconcelos/Koch further teaches a method comprising determining whether bias exists in the AI model via utilization of one or more protected attributes (“the statistical imparity (i.e., bias) is the difference between the probability that a random individual drawn from S is labeled 1 and the probability that a random individual from the complement SC is labeled 1. The probability is taken both over the distribution D and the random choices made by the algorithm. It calculates the difference that the majority and protected classes (e.g., having sensitive attribute) get a particular outcome. When that difference is small, the classifier has “statistical parity,” i.e. to conforms to the notion of fairness, and is therefore considered not to be biased,” Vasconcelos paragraph 0055 lines 1-11) selected by a user via a computer interface (“In an operation 532, the user can select hyperparameters from the accessed tuning evaluation results. For example, the user can select the hyperparameters included in the ‘Best Configuration’ output table. As another option, the user can select a hyperparameter configuration included in the ‘Tuner Results’ output table that is less complex, but provides a similar objective function value in comparison to the hyperparameters included in the ‘Best Configuration’ output table,” Koch paragraph 0148 lines 1-9).
As to dependent claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vasconcelos/Koch further teaches a method comprising determining whether bias exists in the AI model via utilization of one or more privileged or unprivileged group descriptions (“the statistical imparity (i.e., bias) is the difference between the probability that a random individual drawn from S is labeled 1 and the probability that a random individual from the complement SC is labeled 1. The probability is taken both over the distribution D and the random choices made by the algorithm. It calculates the difference that the majority and protected classes (e.g., having sensitive attribute) get a particular outcome. When that difference is small, the classifier has “statistical parity,” i.e. to conforms to the notion of fairness, and is therefore considered not to be biased,” Vasconcelos paragraph 0055 lines 1-11) selected by the user via the computer interface (“In an operation 532, the user can select hyperparameters from the accessed tuning evaluation results. For example, the user can select the hyperparameters included in the ‘Best Configuration’ output table. As another option, the user can select a hyperparameter configuration included in the ‘Tuner Results’ output table that is less complex, but provides a similar objective function value in comparison to the hyperparameters included in the ‘Best Configuration’ output table,” Koch paragraph 0148 lines 1-9).
As to dependent claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vasconcelos/Koch further teaches a method wherein the computing device is executing a machine learning pipeline (“The audit server 220 includes an audit engine 232 that is operative to take a multi-dimensional approach to the different contributing factors of bias in a automated decision making system that uses machine learning, to identify bias and/or provide bias mitigation therefor. To that end, the audit engine 232 is configured to evaluate the training data 205 from the training data repository 210 to provide mitigating options for the pre-processing stage, evaluate various models 203 stored in the model repository 204 to provide mitigating options for the processing stage, and evaluate outputs of different models to provide mitigating options for the post-processing stage. Significantly, the options provided for each stage are evaluated based on a multi-dimensional approach to the contributing factors of bias,” Vasconcelos paragraph 0035 lines 1-14).
As to dependent claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vasconcelos/Koch further teaches a method wherein the results of execution of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms include an independent effectiveness of each of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms (“table 500 illustrates the options available for each mitigation stage, the bias immunity/mitigation, and cost,” Vasconcelos paragraph 0063 lines 17-19).
As to dependent claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Vasconcelos/Koch further teaches a method wherein the independent effectiveness of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms is associated with a minimum accuracy impact or a maximum fairness impact (“the rule set, which is received by the audit engine 232 from the rules database 214, may provide bias threshold limits for each contributing factor of bias and/or automated decision-making system 200. The rule set may also provide cost limits in mitigating each contributing factor of bias and/or in aggregate for the system 200,” Vasconcelos paragraph 0042 lines 4-9).
As to dependent claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vasconcelos/Koch further teaches a method comprising after executing the selected one or more bias mitigation algorithms, generating (“table 500 illustrates the options available for each mitigation stage, the bias immunity/mitigation, and cost,” Vasconcelos paragraph 0063 lines 17-19) and displaying (“In an operation 530, tuning evaluation results are accessed. For example, an indicator may be received that indicates that the tuning process is complete. For example, one or more of the output tables may be presented on display 216 when the tuning process is complete,” Koch paragraph 0147 lines 1-5) a scorecard summarizing results of removal of AI bias from the AI model (“table 500 illustrates the options available for each mitigation stage, the bias immunity/mitigation, and cost,” Vasconcelos paragraph 0063 lines 17-19) and displaying baseline results (“In an operation 530, tuning evaluation results are accessed. For example, an indicator may be received that indicates that the tuning process is complete. For example, one or more of the output tables may be presented on display 216 when the tuning process is complete,” Koch paragraph 0147 lines 1-5).
As to dependent claim 14, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Vasconcelos/Koch further teaches a method wherein the scorecard is based on a performance metric, the performance metric used to measure success of removal of bias from the AI model (“table 500 illustrates the options available for each mitigation stage, the bias immunity/mitigation, and cost,” Vasconcelos paragraph 0063 lines 17-19).
As to dependent claim 15, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Vasconcelos/Koch further teaches a method wherein the performance metric is displayed to the user via the computer interface (“In an operation 530, tuning evaluation results are accessed. For example, an indicator may be received that indicates that the tuning process is complete. For example, one or more of the output tables may be presented on display 216 when the tuning process is complete,” Koch paragraph 0147 lines 1-5).
As to dependent claim 16, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Vasconcelos/Koch further teaches a method wherein the selected one or more bias mitigation algorithms are associated with exactly one bias mitigation strategy type of a plurality of bias mitigation strategy types and the scorecard reflects which bias mitigation strategy type is associated with each grade of a plurality of grades in the scorecard (Vasconcelos figure 5).
As to independent claim 17, Vasconcelos teaches a method using a computing device to remove AI bias associated with an AI model, the method comprising:
accessing by a computing device an AI model (“evaluate various models 203 stored in the model repository 204,” paragraph 0035 lines 8-9);
executing by the computing device two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms in a machine learning pipeline, a result of a first independent bias mitigation algorithm used as an input to a subsequent independent bias mitigation algorithm (“The audit server 220 includes an audit engine 232 that is operative to take a multi-dimensional approach to the different contributing factors of bias in a automated decision making system that uses machine learning, to identify bias and/or provide bias mitigation therefor. To that end, the audit engine 232 is configured to evaluate the training data 205 from the training data repository 210 to provide mitigating options for the pre-processing stage, evaluate various models 203 stored in the model repository 204 to provide mitigating options for the processing stage, and evaluate outputs of different models to provide mitigating options for the post-processing stage. Significantly, the options provided for each stage are evaluated based on a multi-dimensional approach to the contributing factors of bias,” paragraph 0035 lines 1-14);
requesting (“the rule set, which is received by the audit engine 232 from the rules database 214, may provide bias threshold limits for each contributing factor of bias and/or automated decision-making system 200. The rule set may also provide cost limits in mitigating each contributing factor of bias and/or in aggregate for the system 200,” paragraph 0042 lines 4-9) [] a result of execution of the machine learning pipeline, the result of execution of machine learning pipeline including a scorecard summarizing results of removal of AI bias from the AI model (“table 500 illustrates the options available for each mitigation stage, the bias immunity/mitigation, and cost,” paragraph 0063 lines 17-19);
receiving a selection [] of one or more new independent bias mitigation algorithms to modify the machine learning pipeline (“the audit engine block 240 takes a holistic view of the bias mitigation system to find a combination of mitigation measures that is of lowest cost, while being within a predetermined threshold system bias immunity,” paragraph 0066 lines 16-20); and
executing by the computing device a modified machine learning pipeline based on the selection [] (“Upon optimizing the system 200 via a multi-dimensional approach to the pre-processing, processing, and post-processing stages to mitigate bias, the system 200 can then be used to process test data 212 in a computationally efficient way, while maintaining the bias level below a predetermined threshold,” paragraph 0041 lines 1-6).
Vasconcelos does not appear to expressly teach a method comprising:
[requesting] display to a user [results];
[receiving a selection] from the user; and
displayed to the user an updated scorecard based on the modified machine learning pipeline
Koch teaches a method comprising:
requesting display to a user results (“In an operation 530, tuning evaluation results are accessed. For example, an indicator may be received that indicates that the tuning process is complete. For example, one or more of the output tables may be presented on display 216 when the tuning process is complete,” paragraph 0147 lines 1-5); and
receiving a selection from the user (“In an operation 532, the user can select hyperparameters from the accessed tuning evaluation results. For example, the user can select the hyperparameters included in the ‘Best Configuration’ output table. As another option, the user can select a hyperparameter configuration included in the ‘Tuner Results’ output table that is less complex, but provides a similar objective function value in comparison to the hyperparameters included in the ‘Best Configuration’ output table,” paragraph 0148 lines 1-9); and
displayed to the user (“In an operation 530, tuning evaluation results are accessed. For example, an indicator may be received that indicates that the tuning process is complete. For example, one or more of the output tables may be presented on display 216 when the tuning process is complete,” paragraph 0147 lines 1-5) an updated scorecard based on the modified machine learning pipeline (“the selected hyperparameters may be used to score second dataset 1824 with selected model data 320,” paragraph 0149 lines 4-5 – the user may select the new modification as the “second dataset”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the results selection of Vasconcelos to comprise the user interface of Koch. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely allowing a user to select the option (“In an operation 532, the user can select hyperparameters from the accessed tuning evaluation results. For example, the user can select the hyperparameters included in the ‘Best Configuration’ output table. As another option, the user can select a hyperparameter configuration included in the ‘Tuner Results’ output table that is less complex, but provides a similar objective function value in comparison to the hyperparameters included in the ‘Best Configuration’ output table,” Koch paragraph 0148 lines 1-9). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated. Vasconcelos/Koch further teaches a method wherein each of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms is associated with exactly one bias mitigation strategy type of a plurality of bias mitigation strategy types (“The audit server 220 includes an audit engine 232 that is operative to take a multi-dimensional approach to the different contributing factors of bias in a automated decision making system that uses machine learning, to identify bias and/or provide bias mitigation therefor. To that end, the audit engine 232 is configured to evaluate the training data 205 from the training data repository 210 to provide mitigating options for the pre-processing stage, evaluate various models 203 stored in the model repository 204 to provide mitigating options for the processing stage, and evaluate outputs of different models to provide mitigating options for the post-processing stage. Significantly, the options provided for each stage are evaluated based on a multi-dimensional approach to the contributing factors of bias,” Vasconcelos paragraph 0035 lines 1-14).
As to dependent claim 19, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vasconcelos/Koch further teaches a method wherein the plurality of bias mitigation strategy types includes selectively two or more of the following: pre-processing mitigation, in-processing mitigation, and post-processing mitigation (“The audit server 220 includes an audit engine 232 that is operative to take a multi-dimensional approach to the different contributing factors of bias in a automated decision making system that uses machine learning, to identify bias and/or provide bias mitigation therefor. To that end, the audit engine 232 is configured to evaluate the training data 205 from the training data repository 210 to provide mitigating options for the pre-processing stage, evaluate various models 203 stored in the model repository 204 to provide mitigating options for the processing stage, and evaluate outputs of different models to provide mitigating options for the post-processing stage. Significantly, the options provided for each stage are evaluated based on a multi-dimensional approach to the contributing factors of bias,” Vasconcelos paragraph 0035 lines 1-14).
As to independent claim 20, Vasconcelos teaches a computer system to automatically remove AI bias associated with an AI model, the computer system comprising:
one or more computer processors (figure 7 part 704);
one or more computer-readable storage media (figure 7 part 706);
program instructions (figure 7 part 740) stored on the computer-readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more processors, the program instructions comprising:
program instructions to access an AI model (“evaluate various models 203 stored in the model repository 204,” paragraph 0035 lines 8-9);
program instructions to execute two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms, each of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms designed to independently remove AI bias from the AI model (“The audit server 220 includes an audit engine 232 that is operative to take a multi-dimensional approach to the different contributing factors of bias in a automated decision making system that uses machine learning, to identify bias and/or provide bias mitigation therefor. To that end, the audit engine 232 is configured to evaluate the training data 205 from the training data repository 210 to provide mitigating options for the pre-processing stage, evaluate various models 203 stored in the model repository 204 to provide mitigating options for the processing stage, and evaluate outputs of different models to provide mitigating options for the post-processing stage. Significantly, the options provided for each stage are evaluated based on a multi-dimensional approach to the contributing factors of bias,” paragraph 0035 lines 1-14);
program instructions to request (“the rule set, which is received by the audit engine 232 from the rules database 214, may provide bias threshold limits for each contributing factor of bias and/or automated decision-making system 200. The rule set may also provide cost limits in mitigating each contributing factor of bias and/or in aggregate for the system 200,” paragraph 0042 lines 4-9) [] results of execution of the two or more independent bias mitigation algorithms (“table 500 illustrates the options available for each mitigation stage, the bias immunity/mitigation, and cost,” paragraph 0063 lines 17-19);
program instructions to receive a selection [] of one or more bias mitigation algorithms for use with the AI model (“the audit engine block 240 takes a holistic view of the bias mitigation system to find a combination of mitigation measures that is of lowest cost, while being within a predetermined threshold system bias immunity,” paragraph 0066 lines 16-20); and
program instructions execute the selected one or more bias mitigation algorithms to correct bias in the Al model (“Upon optimizing the system 200 via a multi-dimensional approach to the pre-processing, processing, and post-processing stages to mitigate bias, the system 200 can then be used to process test data 212 in a computationally efficient way, while maintaining the bias level below a predetermined threshold,” paragraph 0041 lines 1-6).
Vasconcelos does not appear to expressly teach a computer system comprising program instructions to:
[request] display to a user [results]; and
[receive a selection] from the user.
Koch teaches a computer system comprising program instructions to:
request display to a user results (“In an operation 530, tuning evaluation results are accessed. For example, an indicator may be received that indicates that the tuning process is complete. For example, one or more of the output tables may be presented on display 216 when the tuning process is complete,” paragraph 0147 lines 1-5); and
receive a selection from the user (“In an operation 532, the user can select hyperparameters from the accessed tuning evaluation results. For example, the user can select the hyperparameters included in the ‘Best Configuration’ output table. As another option, the user can select a hyperparameter configuration included in the ‘Tuner Results’ output table that is less complex, but provides a similar objective function value in comparison to the hyperparameters included in the ‘Best Configuration’ output table,” paragraph 0148 lines 1-9).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the results selection of Vasconcelos to comprise the user interface of Koch. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely allowing a user to select the option (“In an operation 532, the user can select hyperparameters from the accessed tuning evaluation results. For example, the user can select the hyperparameters included in the ‘Best Configuration’ output table. As another option, the user can select a hyperparameter configuration included in the ‘Tuner Results’ output table that is less complex, but provides a similar objective function value in comparison to the hyperparameters included in the ‘Best Configuration’ output table,” Koch paragraph 0148 lines 1-9). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 2023/0008904 A1 disclosing a user interface to select bias mitigation options and display predicted results
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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan Barrett whose telephone number is 571 270 3311. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am to 5:30pm.
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 Michelle Bechtold can be reached at 571 431 0762. 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.
/Ryan Barrett/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148
Prosecution Insights