DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Applicant filed a response dated 2/17/2026 in which claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended, claims 2, 9, and 16 have been canceled. Thus, the claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are pending in the application.
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, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of determining bias in a resume corpus without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention presented in independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
The claim 1 recites a series of steps, e.g., receiving a plurality of baseline resumes; creating or generating a plurality of flagged resumes from the plurality of baseline resumes; creating or generating a resume corpus from the plurality of baseline resumes and the plurality of flagged resumes; inputting the resume corpus into the LLM; receiving an LLM classification output for the resume corpus; and measuring a LLM bias based on the classification output, wherein each of the plurality of flagged resumes includes at least one modified sensitive attribute, and wherein the measuring the LLM bias comprises comparing classification outputs between a 1:1 matching of baseline resumes and flagged resumes to determine a different in classification rates attributable to the modified sensitive attribute. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe the abstract idea of determining bias in a resume corpus, which may correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (a person following a set of instructions; certain activity between a person and a computer; October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, page 5). The additional element of LLM does not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of LLM results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional element of LLM is recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprise a generic computing device. The presence of a generic computing device does nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitation of additional element does not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 1 does not include additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of LLM is recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional element when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 1 is not patent-eligible.
Similar arguments can be extended to other independent claims 8 and 15 and hence the claims 8 and 15 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Dependent claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and hence corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract in nature for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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 CFR 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, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sethre et al., US Patent Application No. 2020/0394615 in view of Wadhawan et al., US Patent Application No. 2025/0284886.
Regarding claim 1, Sethre discloses a method for determining bias in at least one large language model (LLM), comprising:
receiving a plurality of baseline resumes; creating or generating a plurality of flagged resumes from the plurality of baseline resumes (([0008]);
creating or generating a resume corpus from the plurality of baseline resumes and the plurality of flagged resumes ([0008], identifying a flagged resume in the plurality of resumes);
inputting the resume corpus into the LLM;
receiving an LLM classification output for the resume corpus; and
measuring a LLM bias based on the classification output,
wherein each of the plurality of flagged resumes includes at least one modified sensitive attribute, and
wherein the measuring the LLM bias comprises comparing classification outputs between a 1:1 matching of baseline resumes and flagged resumes to determine a difference in classification rates attributable to the modified sensitive attribute.
Sethre does not specifically disclose
inputting the resume corpus into the LLM;
receiving an LLM classification output for the resume corpus; and
measuring a LLM bias based on the classification output,
wherein each of the plurality of flagged resumes includes at least one modified sensitive attribute, and wherein the measuring the LLM bias comprises comparing classification outputs between a 1:1 matching of baseline resumes and flagged resumes to determine a difference in classification rates attributable to the modified sensitive attribute.
However, Wadhawan discloses
inputting the resume corpus into the LLM ([0027], [0034]-[0035], [0064]);
receiving an LLM classification output for the resume corpus ([0027], [0035], [0064]); and
measuring a LLM bias based on the classification output ([0027]),
wherein each of the plurality of flagged resumes includes at least one modified sensitive attribute ([0035], manage/edit the dataset to remove the toxic/biased statements serves a modified sensitive attribute; [0036]-[0037]), and
wherein the measuring the LLM bias comprises comparing classification outputs between a 1:1 matching of baseline resumes and flagged resumes to determine a difference in classification rates attributable to the modified sensitive attribute ([0027], LLM is biased against hiring societal group 3; [0036]-[0037], [0044], [0094]). Moreover, Examiner notes that the use of 1:1 matching is clearly an aesthetic design change (see MPEP § 2144.04). The design change that relates to ornamentation only and have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the above-noted disclosure of Sethre to include the above-noted disclosure of Wadhawan. The motivation for combining these references would have been to automate resume reading by LLM as illustrated by Wadhawan in [0027].
Regarding claim 3, Sethre discloses wherein each of the plurality of flagged resumes includes at least one modified sensitive attribute, and wherein the 1:1 matched baseline and flagged resumes only differ by the modified sensitive attribute ([0067], [0071]).
Regarding claim 4, Wadhawan discloses wherein each of the plurality of flagged resumes includes at least one modified sensitive attribute, wherein the modified sensitive attributes of the plurality of flagged resumes comprise at least one of (i) an employment gap due to maternity or paternity, (ii) a pregnancy status, or (iii) a political affiliation ([0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the above-noted disclosure of Sethre to include the above-noted disclosure of Wadhawan. The motivation for combining these references would have been to automate resume reading by LLM as illustrated by Wadhawan in [0027].
Regarding claim 5, Sethre discloses wherein the modified sensitive attributes further comprise at least one of a race, an age, or a gender ([0067], [0071]).
Regarding claim 6, Wadhawan discloses creating or generating a summarizing prompt for the LLM ([0033]); and
inputting the summarizing prompt into the LLM along with the resume corpus ([0027], [0033]-[0035], [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the above-noted disclosure of Sethre to include the above-noted disclosure of Wadhawan. The motivation for combining these references would have been to automate resume reading by LLM as illustrated by Wadhawan in [0027].
Regarding claim 7, Wadhawan discloses wherein the LLM bias is further measured based on an LLM output to the summarizing prompt ([0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the above-noted disclosure of Sethre to include the above-noted disclosure of Wadhawan. The motivation for combining these references would have been to automate resume reading by LLM as illustrated by Wadhawan in [0027].
Claims 8 and 10-20 are substantially similar to claims 1 and 3-7 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed dated 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that the claims pending in the present application address a problem specifically arising in the realm of LLMs – namely, the problem of bias in LLM-based algorithm hiring systems. Applicant states that the amended independent claims 1 8, and 15 include specific recitations that provide a particular solutions to a problem, not merely the idea of a solution. Amended independent claims 1, 8 and 15 improve LLM technology by providing a method to evaluate and identify bias in LLM processing.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the problem is basically associated with the type of data that is used to train the LLM. The problem is not associated with the LLM or the use of LLM, it is basically associated with the type of data that is inputted when training the LLM. For example, Wadhawan in [0034] discloses that the commonly heard adage of garbage in, garbage out is particular pertinent, whereby a LLM that has been trained with a dataset that includes toxic statements and/or bias will perform in a manner of considering the toxic statements and/or bias to the acceptable terms/tokens/statements in the corpus comprising the training dataset, and accordingly will generate the toxic statements, etc., based thereon. Wadhawan addresses this by modifying the dataset when training the LLM. This means that output improvement of using an LLM is associated with improving the input dataset, which is an improvement to abstract idea and not to LLM. Thus, the problem is not necessarily rooted with LLM, but instead it is associated with the quality of dataset. By addressing the quality of dataset, one can achieve the desired goal of bias-free output with an LLM-based algorithm hiring systems.
With respect to “apply it” arguments, Applicant states that the LLM is not merely a generic computer implementing an abstract idea, it is the specific technology being tested through the claimed bias detection methodology.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the LLM is recited at a high level of generality in that it simply amounts to applying the abstract idea. There is no technical improvement to the LLM and thus the use of LLM does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights