Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-11 recite a method (process) and Claims 12-20 recite a method (process) and therefore fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?):
Referring to claims 1-20, the claims recite concepts covering a manner of arbitrating a dispute, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers concepts covered under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas.
The abstract idea portion of the claims is as follows:
(Claim 1) A method of mitigating bias in a disputed result comprising: providing a claimant with the disputed result comprising a claim and a set of claimed facts; providing a counter-claimant that has a counter-claim and a set of counter-claimed facts; providing one or more arbitrators, comprising at least a first arbitrator, a second arbitrator, and a third arbitrator; selecting, [via a hardware processor communicating with an arbitrator database], one or more arbitrators; moderating a first comparison comprising the claimant and counter-claimant each submitting one or more argument in favor of the claim or the counter-claim to the arbitrators over a specified duration; moderating a second comparison comprising the claimant’s set of claimed facts and the counter-claimant’s set of counter-claimed facts to the arbitrators over a specified duration; producing, [using the hardware processor], a composite of arbitrator scores based on combining the first comparison and the second comparison [via a first, second, and third generative artificial intelligence arbitrators, each having a data processing memory allocation utilized to produce the composite of arbitrator scores] , wherein the composite of arbitrator scores is comprising a first arbitrator score, a second arbitrator score, and third arbitrator score scored separately by both the claimant and the counter-claimant; producing a claimant ranking of the composite of arbitrator scores; producing a counter-claimant ranking of the composite of arbitrator scores; comparing the counter-claimant ranking to the claimant ranking and producing a disputant ranking, calculating, [using the hardware processor], a Steelman Score for each arbitrator based on the disputant ranking; and mitigating the bias of the first arbitrator, a second arbitrator, and a third arbitrator in the disputed result based on the disputant ranking and by weighting the disputant ranking in proportion to the Steelman Score.
(Claim 12)
A method comprising: determining a claim submission [via a hardware processor] by combining a claim submission template, a claimant including a claimant stake, a counter-claimant including a counter-claimant stake, and an arbitration budget [from an online input portal, the arbitration budget comprising a data flow allocation for processing time at an application server]; transmitting the claim submission [to a claim database enabled to communicate with a network], distributing the claim submission [from the claim database] to the counter-claimant [via the hardware processor and the network]; selecting one or more chatbot arbitrators based on the arbitration budget of the claim submission for arbitration; selecting a plurality of chatbot arbitrators from [an arbitrator database, the arbitrator database comprising] a set of chatbot arbitrators including a set of arbitrator prestige rankings; selecting one or more moderators from [a moderator database, the moderator database comprising] a set of moderators including a set of moderator rankings; Identifying a claim fact and a counter-claim fact set [via the hardware processor] by combining the claim submission template, a claimant position, and a counter-claimant position; producing a set of arbitrator votes regarding the strength of each claimant’s position [via the hardware processor] by combining the claim fact set with the claimant stake and the counter-claimant stake, as well as combining the counter-claim fact set with the claimant stake and the counter-claimant stake; collecting the set of arbitrator votes via an arbitrator vote template configured to communicate with the network; transmitting the set of arbitrator votes to the claimant and the counter-claimant [via the network]; creating a claimant-ranked set of the arbitrators, and a counter-claimant-ranked set of the arbitrators by each the claimant and counter-claimant by combining the claimant position and the claimant stake [via the hardware processor] and comparing to the set of arbitrator votes, and by combining the counter-claimant position and the counter-claimant stake [via the hardware processor] and comparing to the set of arbitrator votes, respectively; producing a weighted arbitrator vote set [via the hardware processor] by applying a bias-mitigation weighting factor, derived from a comparison of the claimant-ranked set of arbitrators and the counter-claimant-ranked set of arbitrators to the set of arbitrator votes, the weighted arbitrator vote set including a claimant success set and a counter-claimant success set; selecting the prevailing party [via the hardware processor] by comparing the claimant success set and the counter-claimant success set; and transmitting [via a communication interface], the prevailing party [wherein the method provides an improvement to computer-implemented arbitration systems by creating a self-correcting feedback loop that quantifies and mitigates arbitrator bias].
Where the portions not bracketed recite the abstract idea.
Here the claims recite concepts performed in Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in particular managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. In the present application concepts reciting a manner of organizing the arbitration of a dispute (See paragraphs 3 and 6-10).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts capable of being performed in managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions), it falls under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?):
The examiner views the following as the additional elements:
A hardware processor. (See paragraph 21)
Online input portal. (See paragraph 74 and Figure 4. el. 410)
Claim database. (See paragraphs 92-93)
A network. (See paragraphs 59-60)
An arbitrator database. (See paragraph 79)
A moderator database. (See paragraphs 42-43)
Communication interface. (See paragraphs 58-60)
An application server. (See paragraph 60)
A first, second, and third generative artificial intelligence arbitrator. (See paragraph 23
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they act to merely “apply” the abstract idea using generic computing components and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f))
Regarding, “a first, second, and third generative artificial intelligence arbitrators, each having a data processing memory allocation utilized to produce the composite of arbitrator scores”, “the arbitration budget comprising a data flow allocation for processing time at an application server” and “wherein the method provides an improvement to computer-implemented arbitration systems by creating a self-correcting feedback loop that quantifies and mitigates arbitrator bias”. The examiner views these limitations as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this limitation is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and paragraphs 23, 42, and 46 of the Specification)
The combination of these additional elements and/or results oriented steps are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f)) Accordingly, even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?):
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a method that generally “apply” the concepts discussed in prong 1 above. (See MPEP 2106.05 f (II)) In particular applicant has recited the computing components at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As the court stated in TLI Communications v. LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) merely invoking generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and as a result the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2, further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the generic one or more database (See paragraph 102) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 2 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 3 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the generic one or more digital wallets (See paragraph 63) and hardware processors (See paragraph 113) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 3 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 4-11 further define the abstract idea as identified. Therefore claims 4-11 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 13 and 17, further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the generic arbitrator database (See paragraph 79) and hardware processor (See paragraph 21) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claims 13 and 17 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 14 and 18, further define the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the generic arbitrator database (See paragraphs 79) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claims 14 and 18 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 15, further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the generic network (See paragraphs 59-60) and hardware processor (See paragraph 21) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 15 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 16 and 19 further define the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the generic hardware processor (See paragraph 21) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore claims 16 and 19 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 20, further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the generic one or more digital wallets (See paragraph 63) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 20 is considered to be patent ineligible.
In conclusion the claims do not provide an inventive concept, because the claims do not recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of the claims. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 19, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the Examiner has provided no explanation concerning why certain claim elements fall within one of the grouping of abstract idea, or are not integrated into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the Examiner outlined the abstract idea in the Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis i.e. such steps including providing claimants, counter-claimants, and arbitrators, selecting arbitrators, moderating a comparison of the arguments etc. as steps of an abstract idea. The claims recite managing personal interactions or behavior between people as evident from the identified abstract idea in the Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis. The Examiner notes the typographical errors regarding what the Examiner viewed as the recited abstract idea. However, the identified abstract idea and additional elements put Applicant on notice, regarding what the Examiner asserts to be the reciting an abstract idea versus what was considered as an additional element and that the claims recite a manner of organizing human activity in particular managing personal interactions or behavior as identified in the Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis. The Examiner notes how Applicant argues “the claims are not directed to the general concept of dispute resolution itself” further indicating Applicant understood what the Examiner identified as the recited abstract idea.
Further the additional elements identified by the Examiner are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. MPEP 2106.05 (f). Citing to MPEP 2106.05:
Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should: Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
Here the Examiner determined the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea and carried over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2.
Applicant argues the claims are not directed to the general concept of dispute resolution itself, but rather to a specific technological method for improving such systems directed in many embodiments to solutions of LLM hallucinations. According to Applicant the multi-step process involves (Claim 1) producing a composite of arbitrator scores, creating separate rankings from the claimant and counter-claimant and then comparing the counter-claimant ranking to the claimant ranking and producing a disputing ranking to mitigate bias and (Claim 12) creating ranked sets of arbitrators and then producing a weighted arbitrator vote set which is used to select the prevailing party. Applicant contends these limitations use a novel ranking and weighting system to achieve a tangible, technical improvement: the reduction of cognitive and institutional bias in an arbitration system.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing that the claims do not recite any aspects to LLMs or resolving LLM hallucinations. Further the multi-step process and weighting system are steps of the abstract idea and cannot constitute a technical improvement such as the reduction of cognitive and institutional bias in an arbitration system. See MPEP 2106.04(a) “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.“
Applicant argues the additional elements play an integrated role by providing a specific system architecture where a hardware processor is specially configured to execute a novel process using data from multiple distinct databases (a claim database, an arbitrator database, a moderator database). Applicant contends the processor executes specific steps such as “producing a weighted arbitrator vote set by comparing the claimant-ranked set… and the counter-claimant-ranked set” and “selecting the prevailing party…by comparing the claimant success set and the counter-claimant success set.” According to Applicant, this represents an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself, transforming it from a mere data processor into a specialized tool for activity detecting and mitigating bias. The system produces a concrete tangible result a weighted outcome based on a novel scoring system (“the Steelman score”), arbitrator compensation tied to that score, and an updated prestige ranking stored in a database for future arbitrator selections. According to Applicant this improves the technical field of automated and computer-assisted dispute resolution by providing a self-correcting system that incentivizes objectivity.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing the additional elements proffered by Applicant are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components. The Examiner they do not view the processor executed steps as additional elements but rather as steps of the abstract idea. The Examiner reiterates that the abstract idea cannot provided for the alleged technical improvement of activity detecting and mitigating bias. The Examiner does not view the steps pertaining to the scoring system, arbitrator compensation or ranking as additional elements but steps of the abstract idea and therefore cannot constitute as providing a technical improvement as proffered by Applicant.
Therefore, the Examiner has maintained the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
O’Dorisio et al (US 20190295199) – directed to an intelligent legal simulator.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J MONAGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5523. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached on (571) 270-1833. 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.
/M.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629