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 .
This Office Action is in response to Application 19/094,949 filed on 02/10/2025.
Claim 1 is currently pending and examined below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 2, 43, 80, and 82 are blurry. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is/are directed towards a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites (additional elements underlined):
A method for detecting silent bias across media platforms, comprising executing several empirical models on media across different media outlets to detect strategic omission.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified below, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed in the mind. These limitations are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, the claim recite a mental process (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a commercial interaction. Commercial interactions fall within the certain method of organizing human activity enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a fundamental economic principle or practice because commercial interactions are related to commerce and economy. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Therefore, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
In Step 2A Prong Two, these additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional element(s) amount adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) does not integrate the judicial exception similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. “[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. (Step 2A Prong Two, No).
In Step 2B, the additional elements also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) (Step 2B, No).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otero et al. (US 2020/0372067 A1, hereinafter “Otero”) in view of Ghulati et al. (WO 2019/175571 A1, hereinafter “Ghulati”).
As per Claim 1, Otero discloses A method for detecting silent bias across media platforms, … on media across different media outlets to detect strategic omission (¶ 33 “The present disclosure provides systems and methods for rating multiple factors in news media stories along multiple dimensions in intuitive data collection and display platforms. An aspect of the disclosure relates to methods for measuring and evaluating factors of quality (also referred to herein as “reliability”) and bias of news media sources and stories. For the purposes of the present disclosure, “news media stories” may refer to written articles in print or on the internet, video clips on the internet or television, audio broadcasts such as those on the radio or podcasts, and combinations of the above, which are presented to readers or viewers for the purpose of providing any kind of information about current events. They may also include news, news-like information, commentary, analysis, and opinion in newer social media formats, such as Twitter threads, Facebook posts, infographics, or memes.” ¶ 34 “News media sources,” or simply “information sources” may refer to journalism outlets, including print and online newspapers, print and online magazines, network TV broadcast stations, local TV stations, cable broadcast channels, cable broadcast individual shows, internet shows, radio stations and shows, online news sites, online news aggregators or feeds, app-based aggregators or feeds, and any other type of organizer, distributor, or publisher of news media stories. They may refer to entities as small as a lone individual broadcasting or posting news stories, or as large as international multi-media conglomerations.” ¶ 112 “The method may then comprise identifying any major facts omitted in the article being rated that are presented in the lateral articles, the omission of which impacts the partisan viewpoint of the article being rated.” Also see at least ¶¶ 103, 113, 123, and 125.).
While Otero discloses the use of a machine learning model for scoring information source content (¶ 158), Otero does not appear to explicitly disclose … comprising executing several empirical models.
However, in the same field of endeavor of analyzing media content across different media outlets to detect bias, Ghulati teaches … comprising executing several empirical models (Page 16 lines 29-33 “Operating one or more learned models comprising a step of performing stance detection or one or more methods in conjunction with stance detection may enhance a method and/or system in order to achieve a more accurate and detailed score indicative of stance in relation to content.” Page 25 lines 5-15 “Within the machine learning classifier, 4116 and 4214, many machine learning models may be implemented, including but not limited to, a multi-task learning model, logistic regression, joint-learning, support vector machines etc. Depending on the model and the data which is used to train the model, the features used in modelling will change appropriately. In other embodiments there may require various different types of learning models in order to detect contentious content on multiple different types of data such as news or comments. The classifier may also include an ensemble of classifiers where the model is trained on the predictions of n models.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for detecting silent bias across media platforms to detect strategic omission as disclosed by Otero, to include the step of analyzing media content using several empirical models as taught by Ghulati, because doing so would enhance the method and system in order to achieve a more accurate and detailed score indicative of stance in relation to content (Ghulati, Page 16 lines 29-33). The combination would also increase detection accuracy and reduce overfitting. Additionally, since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate reference, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of the several empirical models of Ghulati for the single empirical model of Otero. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious (KSR Rationale B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Charnock et al. (US 2022/0164643 A1) discloses a system to detect, asses, and counter disinformation.
Gable (US Patent No. 9,285,973 B1) discloses systems and methods for detecting and displaying bias.
Jolly et al. (US 2024/0257272 A1) discloses systems and methods to enhance news literacy in news consumers.
Song et al. (US 2011/0022595 A1) discloses systems and methods for mitigating effects of media bias.
Goldstein et al. (US 2019/0179861 A1) discloses the concept of containing disinformation spread using customizable intelligence channels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM REFAI whose telephone number is (313)446-4822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
/SAM REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621