Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 21-24, 27-31, 34-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 21
Step 1, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a computer-implemented method that performs at least one step. Thus, the claim is to a method/process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim "recites" a judicial exception when the judicial exception is "set forth" or "described" in the claim.
Limitation “applying a Bayes factor comprising a ratio of a first metric to a second metric to the ranking of the plurality of items to determine a likelihood of bias for the ranking, wherein the first metric comprises a determination of a likelihood of bias of the plurality of items, and wherein the second metric comprises determination of a likelihood of absence of bias for the ranking”. This limitation recites a judicial exception under the 2019 PEG because it encompasses a mathematical concept, specifically mathematical calculations or relationships. The phrase "ratio of a first metric to a second metric" explicitly sets forth a math calculation.
Limitation “responsive to determining that the likelihood of bias for the ranking exceeds a modification criterion: identifying a value of a multi-valued protected feature of the plurality of items that is subject to the bias exceeding the modification criterion”. This limitation recites a judicial exception under the 2019 PEG because it encompasses a mental process. The phrase "determining... exceeds" involves an evaluation or judgment, and "identifying a value... subject to the bias" involves observation of specific data. These steps can practically be performed in the human mind using pen and paper.
“Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). The mentioned limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two: The claim recites the additional elements:
receiving, from an external ranking system, a ranking of a plurality of items, the ranking comprising an amount of bias
executing a plurality of iterations modifying the ranking
elevating a rank of an item of the plurality of items having the value of the multi-valued protected feature that is subject to the bias exceeding the modification criterion
outputting the modified ranking of the plurality of items
MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field.
The additional limitations, receiving a ranking, executing iterations modifying the ranking, elevating a rank, and outputting the modified ranking, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not make an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. The additional elements are generic computer steps that do not solve a specific technical problem or improve the technology.
MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine.
The claim is silent regarding specific limitations directed to an improved computer system, processor, memory, network, database, or Internet, nor do applicant direct examiner’s attention to such specific limitations. "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea on 'an Internet computer network' or on a generic computer is still an abstract idea."). Applying this reasoning here, the claim is not directed to a particular machine, but rather merely implement an abstract idea using generic computer components such as a computer-implemented method and external ranking system. Thus, the claims fail to satisfy the "tied to a particular machine" prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation.
The limitations modifying the ranking and elevating a rank of an item involve a manipulation of data values within a ranking structure. There is no transformation of a particular article or tangible matter.
MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
The limitations receiving from an external ranking system, outputting the modified ranking, and elevating a rank do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Receiving, outputting, and elevating are mere instructions to implement the exception on a generic computer.
MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The limitation “receiving, from an external ranking system” and “outputting the modified ranking” are considered extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g). They represent data gathering and display and do not integrate the exception into a practical application beyond merely adding steps to the mental process/mathematical concept.
MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
The limitation “executing iterations modifying the ranking” is not integrated into a practical application because it is linked to a ranking system but does not apply the exception in some other meaningful way tied to that field.
Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, examine the elements of the independent claim—both individually and as an ordered combination—to see if they provide an inventive concept that adds “significantly more” than the exception itself. Regarding the specific limitations such as “receiving a ranking”, “executing iterations”, and “elevating a rank”, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer data processing. Furthermore, the combination of receiving input data, performing iterative calculations, identifying bias thresholds, adjusting rank values for protected features, and outputting results amounts only to standard computer operations. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the likelihood of bias of the plurality of items for the ranking of the plurality of items is determined with respect to the multi-valued protected feature”. This additional limitation does not introduce a non-conventional or unconventional step that improves computer functioning.
Claim 23 recites “wherein the modification criterion comprises a threshold of demographic parity with respect to the multi-valued protected feature, and wherein demographic parity with respect to the multi-valued protected feature comprises ranking items of the plurality of items with a particular value of the feature proportional to a rate of occurrence of the particular value of the multi-valued protected feature relative to all values of the multi-valued protected feature”. This limitation adds more detail on how the "modification criterion" threshold is defined (demographic parity). The limitation fails to provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 24 recites “wherein the external ranking system is a ranking classifier trained using machine learning.” This limitation recites the use of a ranking classifier. The limitation fails to provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 27 recites “wherein an iteration of modifying the ranking further comprises applying respective Bayes factors to individual ones of the plurality of items to determine the likelihood of bias for the ranking of the items.” This limitation breaks down the "executing iterations" step into a specific mathematical operation (applying Bayes factors). The limitation fails to provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 28-31 and 31 are similar to claim 21-24 and 27. The claims are rejected based on the same reasons.
Claim 35-38 are similar to claim 21-24. The claims are rejected based on the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument has been considered. The claims currently are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAU HAI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5894. The examiner can normally be reached 1st biwk: Mon-Thurs 7:00 AM-5:00 PM; 2nd biwk: Mon-Thurs: 7:00 am-5:00pm, Fri: 7:00 am - 4:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
HAU HAI. HOANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/HAU H HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights