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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is a First Office Action Non-Final on Merits.
Examiner is interpreting [0001] as claim 1; [0002] as claim 2; [0003] as claim 3; [0004] as claim 4; [0005] as claim 5; [0006] as claim 6; [0007] as claim 7, for examining purposes. Therefore, claims 1-7 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The abstract is objected to as it is not in the proper format and does not contain the proper content. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Further, the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Substitute with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The title of the invention is objected to. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters. The specification is objected to for not being in the proper format. The specification does not provide any clear or concise explanation of the invention to be claimed. Appropriate correction is required. The claims are objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b). See MPEP 608.01(i) – (p)
37 C.F.R. 1.75 Claims
(a) The specification must conclude with a claim particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention or discovery. (b) More than one claim may be presented provided they differ substantially from each other and are not unduly multiplied. (c) One or more claims may be presented in dependent form, referring back to and further limiting another claim or claims in the same application. Any dependent claim which refers to more than one other claim ("multiple dependent claim") shall refer to such other claims in the alternative only. A multiple dependent claim shall not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim. (d)(1) The claim or claims must conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description (See § 1.58(a).) (2) See §§ 1.141 to 1.146 as to claiming different inventions in one application. (e) Where the nature of the case admits, as in the case of an improvement, any independent claim should contain in the following order: (1) A preamble comprising a general description of all the elements or steps of the claimed combination which are conventional or known, (2) A phrase such as "wherein the improvement comprises," and (3) Those elements, steps, and/or relationships which constitute that portion of the claimed combination which the applicant considers as the new or improved portion. (f) If there are several claims, they shall be numbered consecutively in Arabic numerals. (g) The least restrictive claim should be presented as claim number 1, and all dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer to the extent practicable. (h) The claim or claims must commence on a separate physical sheet or electronic page. Any sheet including a claim or portion of a claim may not contain any other parts of the application or other material. (i) Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. Further, Claim 1 recites: "[000119]2. Classifying the content using keyword and descriptor categorization. [000119]3.Analyzing the content using custom GPT AI models for indicators of hate speech, bias, toxicity, or misinformation. [000119]4.Applying the Integrated Framework for Assessing Racial Discourse (IFARD) to perform contextual and sociological evaluation. [000119]5.Retrieving factual and historical data from a Racial Justice Data Library. [000119]6.Fact-checking the content using external sources including news and social media. [000119]7. Generating a counterargument using a counterargument generation module. [000119]8.Applying quality assurance using a GPT Rater. [000119]9.Presenting the counterargument and data visualizations to the user.” The claim is using periods throughout. A period is only to be used at the end of a claim.
Appropriate correction is required. Examiner note: Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited. See patent references supplied on PTO-892.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) or 35 USC § 112(pre-AIA ), first paragraph
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 there is no details or specifics in the specification for the technology that is sought to be patented. Mere use of the same words in the specification and the claim is not sufficient to establish written description. The written description requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed." Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, the written description requirement promotes the progress of the useful arts by ensuring that patentees adequately describe their inventions in their patent specifications in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the duration of the patent’s term.
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Further, claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The specification simply recites intended uses and high-level outcomes without any actual detail regarding any claimed functional limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or 35 USC § 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1-7 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The claims are replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the system must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claim 1 is replete with numbers and it is unclear what the numbers refer to. Claim 1 recites: "[000119]2. Classifying the content using keyword and descriptor categorization. [000119]3.Analyzing the content using custom GPT AI models for indicators of hate speech, bias, toxicity, or misinformation. [000119]4.Applying the Integrated Framework for Assessing Racial Discourse (IFARD) to perform contextual and sociological evaluation. [000119]5.Retrieving factual and historical data from a Racial Justice Data Library. [000119]6.Fact-checking the content using external sources including news and social media. [000119]7. Generating a counterargument using a counterargument generation module. [000119]8.Applying quality assurance using a GPT Rater. [000119]9.Presenting the counterargument and data visualizations to the user.” Numbers are listed throughout claim 1 and it is unclear what the numbers are referring to. Further, Claim 1 recites the acronym “GPT AI” and “GPT”. However, the Applicant has failed to explicitly define what the acronym refers to. Further clarification is needed.
Further, Claim 1 recites “Applying quality assurance using a GPT Rater”. It is unclear what is meant by a “GPT Rater”. Dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the parent claims and thus dependent claims are rejected on the same basis as indicated above for the respective parent claims.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without a practical application and significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (i.e., Step 1). In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to a method (i.e. a process). Thus, each of these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong One: Abstract Ideas
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 recites: A method for analyzing and countering harmful racial content and racial misinformation in discourse, comprising: [000119] 1. Receiving user-submitted content [000119]2. Classifying the content using keyword and descriptor categorization. [000119]3.Analyzing the content for indicators of hate speech, bias, toxicity, or misinformation. [000119]4.Applying the Integrated Framework for Assessing Racial Discourse (IFARD) to perform contextual and sociological evaluation. [000119]5.Retrieving factual and historical data from a Racial Justice Data Library. [000119]6.Fact-checking the content using external sources including news and social media. [000119]7. Generating a counterargument. [000119]8.Applying quality assurance The limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under the abstract groupings of: Certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). As the claims discuss analyzing and countering harmful racial content and racial misinformation in discourse, analyzing content for indicators of hate speech, bias, toxicity, or misinformation and generating counterarguments, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity. Mental Processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion (claim 1 recites for example, “analyzing and countering harmful racial content and racial misinformation in discourse”; “Receiving user-submitted content; “Classifying the content using keyword and descriptor categorization”; “Analyzing the content for indicators of hate speech, bias, toxicity, or misinformation”; “Retrieving factual and historical data from a Racial Justice Data Library”; “Fact-checking the content using external sources including news and social media”; “Generating a counterargument”). Concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of analyzing, receiving, classifying, fact-checking, and generating counterarguments mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where data interpretation is perceptible in the human mind. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLCPatentLitig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Further, dependent claims add additional limitations, for example: (claim 2) collecting user feedback for refining the system through a continuous learning process; (claim 3) wherein bias mitigation algorithms are applied throughout the analysis and generation process; (claim 4) wherein the system supports multilingual content analysis and response generation; (claim 5) wherein the counterargument includes data visualizations that reference verified historical and contextual information; (claim 6) presenting the counterargument in a format optimized, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements – (claim 1) user interface; GPT AI models; counterargument generation module; GPT Rater; (claim 6) social media platforms; (claim 7) web-based; mobile application. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea, as it adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computing or machine learning, see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, claims 1-7 have been fully analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations fail to include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thus, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heppe et al. (US 2014/0156996 A1), hereinafter “Heppe”, over Galitsky (US 2021/0165969 A1), hereinafter “Galitsky”.
Regarding Claim 1, Heppe teaches A method for analyzing and countering harmful racial content and racial misinformation in online discourse, comprising: [000119] 1. Receiving user-submitted content via a user interface. (See at least Heppe Figure 2; Heppe, Abstract, teaches discourse in online forums including analyzing user comments and scores for comments; See at least Heppe, para 0037, teaches when a comment is received by a site, it is submitted to a set of automated content analysis filters that comprise spelling, vulgarity, relevance, uniqueness, sentiment, and keyword matching (as examples)... the vulgarity filter generates a vector score relating to: the apparent level of obscenity, hate speech, and ad hominem argumentation); [000119]2. Classifying the content using keyword and descriptor categorization. (See at least Heppe, para 0037, teaches when a comment is received by a site, it is submitted to a set of automated content analysis filters that comprise spelling, vulgarity, relevance, uniqueness, sentiment, and keyword matching (as examples); Heppe, para 0038, form a linear combination of a subset of the scores (e.g., forming a weighted sum of scalar scores for relevance, uniqueness, sentiment and keyword matching); [000119]3.Analyzing the content ... for indicators of hate speech, bias, toxicity, or misinformation. (See at least Heppe Figure 2; Heppe, Abstract, teaches discourse in online forums including analyzing user comments and scores for comments; See at least Heppe, para 0037, teaches when a comment is received by a site, it is submitted to a set of automated content analysis filters that comprise spelling, vulgarity, relevance, uniqueness, sentiment, and keyword matching (as examples)... the vulgarity filter generates a vector score relating to: the apparent level of obscenity, hate speech, and ad hominem argumentation); [000119]4.Applying the Integrated Framework for Assessing Racial Discourse (IFARD) to perform contextual and sociological evaluation. (See at least Heppe, para 0093, teaches A comment content analysis module empirically evaluates the comment based on its content...the analysis module may evaluate the comment for spelling, vulgarity, content relevance to the topic of the content, and other factors. The analysis module may reference a variety of resources to more accurately make these evaluations. Examiner note: With respect to “Integrated Framework for Assessing Racial Discourse (IFARD)”, this is simply a label for the framework and adds little, if anything, to the claimed acts or steps and thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the specific type of information) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.); [000119]5.Retrieving factual and historical data from a Racial Justice Data Library. (See at least Heppe, para 0093, The analysis module may reference a variety of resources to more accurately make these evaluations. For example, the analysis module may reference the content data to determine key words or concepts that are present in the content. The analysis module may reference various libraries or databases. For example, a library may contain a spelling dictionary and a list of vulgar or other undesirable words. Examiner note: With respect to “Racial Justice Data” Library this is simply a label for a library and adds little, if anything, to the claimed acts or steps and thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the specific type of information) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.). Yet, Heppe does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Galitsky teaches using custom GPT AI models ... (Galitsky teaches chatbots throughout, see at least Galitsky, para 0040-0041; para 0137, teaches FaceBook® Messenger, WhatsApp®, Slack,® SMS, etc., a conversation between A and B may typically be via messages ... A chatbot (which may also be called intelligent bots or virtual assistant, etc.) is an “intelligent” machine that, for example, replaces human B and to various degrees mimics the conversation between two humans) [000119]6.Fact-checking the content using external sources including news and social media. (See at least Galitsky, para 0440, 0459, 0474, and 0540, teaches machine learning can be employed to detect deception or fake content; See at least Galitsky, Evaluation of Logical Argument Detection, para 0423-0424, teaches a positive dataset is created ... a portion of data where argumentation is frequent, e.g. opinionated data from newspapers such as The New York Times, The Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times and others; See at least Galitsky, para 0641, a data collection method based on social network analysis to quickly identify deceptive and truthful online reviews) [000119]7. Generating a counterargument using a counterargument generation module. (See at least Galitsky, chatbot agents in Figures 21-22); [000119]8.Applying quality assurance using a GPT Rater. (Examiner notes it is unclear what is meant by “GPT Rater”; Examiner interprets as rating/scores of content, which is taught throughout Galitsky, see at least Galitsky, para 0006, computing, for the communicative discourse tree, a complexity score that is a sum of the number of non-trivial rhetorical relations associated with the nonterminal nodes and the total of all the levels of nesting of the communicative actions.) [000119]9.Presenting the counterargument and data visualizations to the user. (See at least Galitsky, Figures 21-22, see for example Figure 22, element 2206, Agent responds and data/text is presented; Galitsky, para 0697, large data sets can be stored and manipulated by analysts and researchers to visualize large amounts of data). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Heppe with using custom GPT AI models ... [000119]6.Fact-checking the content using external sources including news and social media.[000119]7. Generating a counterargument using a counterargument generation module. [000119]8.Applying quality assurance using a GPT Rater.[000119]9.Presenting the counterargument and data visualizations to the user as taught by Galitsky with the motivation for identifying certain features in communicative discourse trees that indicate deception or fake content in text (Galitsky, para 0005). The Heppe invention now incorporating the Galitsky invention, has all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Heppe, now incorporating Galitsky, teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising collecting user feedback for refining the system through a continuous learning process (See at least Galitsky, para 0018, teaches iteratively training the model including elements that identified as including deceptive content and a negative set of training data elements training identified as including text identified as not containing deceptive content; Galitsky, para 0361, Learning continuous phrase representations).
Regarding Claim 3, Heppe, now incorporating Galitsky, teaches The method of claim 1, wherein bias mitigation algorithms are applied throughout the analysis and generation process (Heppe, para 0037, teaches content analysis filters... the vulgarity filter generates a vector score relating to: the apparent level of obscenity, hate speech, and ad hominem argumentation; Heppe teaches scores throughout, see at least para 0040-0041 and 0048-0052, teaches algorithms and scores for different news sites; Examiner notes different algorithms are certainly within the ability of those having ordinary skill in the art.)
Regarding Claim 4, Heppe, now incorporating Galitsky, teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the system supports multilingual content analysis and response generation (Galitsky, para 0219, teaches identifying different discourse structures in multilingual corpora; Further, Galitsky, para 0657, different languages and in different genres of texts.)
Regarding Claim 5, Heppe, now incorporating Galitsky, teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the counterargument includes data visualizations that reference verified historical and contextual information (Galitsky, para 0697, large data sets can be stored and manipulated by analysts and researchers to visualize large amounts of data; See at least Galitsky, chatbot agents in Figures 21-22).
Examiner note: With respect to the information the counterargument includes, this is non-functional descriptive matter and adds little, if anything, to the claimed acts or steps and thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the specific type of information) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Regarding Claim 6, Heppe, now incorporating Galitsky, teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising presenting the counterargument in a format optimized for social media platforms (See at least Galitsky para 0003, chatbots” and agents to answer questions, facilitate discussion, manage dialogues, and provide social promotion (Galitsky, para 0137, FaceBook® Messenger, WhatsApp®, Slack,®), Galitsky, Figures 21-22).
Regarding Claim 7, Heppe, now incorporating Galitsky, teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the user interface is a web-based or mobile application (See at least Galitsky, para 0680, teaches client computing devices may be portable handheld devices (e.g., an iPhone®, cellular telephone, an iPad®, computing tablet, a personal digital assistant (PDA)) or wearable devices (e.g., a Google Glass® head mounted display), running software such as Microsoft Windows Mobile®, and/or a variety of mobile operating systems such as iOS, Windows Phone, Android, BlackBerry 10, Palm OS, and the like, and being Internet, e-mail, short message service (SMS), Blackberry®, or other communication protocol).
Additional Prior Art Consulted
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure includes the following:
Myslinski – US 2018/0305015 A1 - "A social networking fact checking system analyzes and determines the factual accuracy of information and/or characterizes the information by comparing the information with source information"; "users are able to set/select any other option regarding fact checking implementations such as which content to monitor, keywords for monitoring, how content is processed, weighting schemes for sources, priorities"; ": a “donk-phant” for fact checking both Democrats and Republicans, a “prez” token for fact checking the President, a “sen” token for fact checking a member of the Senate, a “house” token for fact checking a member of the House of Representatives".
NPL – NINAREH MEHRABI et al. “A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning”, Published July 13th, 2021, Published in ACM Digital Library – With the widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems and applications in our everyday lives, accounting for fairness has gained significant importance in designing and engineering of such systems. AI systems can be used in many sensitive environments to make important and life-changing decisions; thus, it is crucial to ensure that these decisions do not reflect discriminatory behavior toward certain groups or populations. More recently some work has been developed in traditional machine learning and deep learning that address such challenges in different subdomains. With the commercialization of these systems, researchers are becoming more aware of the biases that these applications can contain and are attempting to address them. In this survey, we investigated different real-world applications that have shown biases in various ways, and we listed different sources of biases that can affect AI applications. We then created a taxonomy for fairness definitions that machine learning researchers have defined to avoid the existing bias in AI systems. In addition to that, we examined different domains and subdomains in AI showing what researchers have observed with regard to unfair outcomes in the state-of-the-art methods and ways they have tried to address them.
NPL – Jiachen Jiang, Soroush Vosoughi, “Not Judging a User by Their Cover: Understanding Harm in Multi-Modal Processing within Social Media Research,” Published October 2020; [2010.09768] Not Judging a User by Their Cover: Understanding Harm in Multi-Modal Processing within Social Media Research - Social media has shaken the foundations of our society, unlikely as it may seem. Many of the popular tools used to moderate harmful digital content, however, have received widespread criticism from both the academic community and the public sphere for middling performance and lack of accountability. Though social media research is thought to center primarily on natural language processing, we demonstrate the need for the community to understand multimedia processing and its unique ethical considerations. Specifically, we identify statistical differences in the performance of Amazon Turk (MTurk) annotators when different modalities of information are provided and discuss the patterns of harm that arise from crowd-sourced human demographic prediction. Finally, we discuss the consequences of those biases through auditing the performance of a toxicity detector called Perspective API on the language of Twitter users across a variety of demographic categories.
Applicant is advised to review additional references supplied on the PTO-892 as to the state of the art of the invention.
Conclusion
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner. A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/ . Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA R NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)272-2524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm EST. 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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. 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.
/R.R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3629/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629