CTNF 18/240,882 CTNF 73675 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 the invention filed on August 31, 2023, in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed on June 6, 2024and April 22, 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file. The information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more. At Step 1 : With respect to subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, it is determined that the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. At Step 2A, Prong One : The limitation “receive a first input produced by a first GUI control of the GUI to identify prediction column in the input data, the prediction column comprising a plurality of prediction values corresponding to a plurality of individuals” in claims 1, 10 and 19, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “receive a first input produced by a first GUI control of the GUI to identify prediction column in the input data, the prediction column comprising a plurality of prediction values corresponding to a plurality of individuals”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “receive a first input produced by a first GUI control of the GUI to identify prediction column in the input data, the prediction column comprising a plurality of prediction values corresponding to a plurality of individuals”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper identify prediction column in the input data, the prediction column comprising a plurality of prediction values corresponding to a plurality of individuals. The limitation “receive a second input produced by a second GUI control of the GUI to identify a ground truth column, the ground truth column comprising a plurality of ground truth values corresponding to the plurality of individuals” in claims 1, 10 and 19, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “receive a second input produced by a second GUI control of the GUI to identify a ground truth column, the ground truth column comprising a plurality of ground truth values corresponding to the plurality of individuals”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “receive a second input produced by a second GUI control of the GUI to identify a ground truth column, the ground truth column comprising a plurality of ground truth values corresponding to the plurality of individuals”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper identify a ground truth column, the ground truth column comprising a plurality of ground truth values corresponding to the plurality of individuals. The limitation “receive a third input produced by a third GUI control of the GUI to identify one or more sensitive attribute columns, wherein each of the sensitive attribute columns comprises a plurality of sensitive attribute values corresponding to the plurality of individuals” in claims 1, 10 and 19, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “receive a third input produced by a third GUI control of the GUI to identify one or more sensitive attribute columns, wherein each of the sensitive attribute columns comprises a plurality of sensitive attribute values corresponding to the plurality of individuals”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “receive a third input produced by a third GUI control of the GUI to identify one or more sensitive attribute columns, wherein each of the sensitive attribute columns comprises a plurality of sensitive attribute values corresponding to the plurality of individuals”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper identify one or more sensitive attribute columns, wherein each of the sensitive attribute columns comprises a plurality of sensitive attribute values corresponding to the plurality of individuals. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. At Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements: That the method is "implemented by a computing system” is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application. "assessing machine learning model fairness" the above identified mental processes and the "identifying" above being performed "using the machine learning model" is at best generally linking the abstract idea to the particular field of use or technological environment of machine learning (see MPEP 2106.05(h), and/or akin to using machine learning as a mere tool (2106.05(f)). No specific type of machine learning processing or techniques are recited in the claim itself, the steps performed in this "training" are entirely mentally performable processes as explained above, and the specification describes this machine learning in the claim in terms of using generic ML models. The limitation “provide instructions for rendering a graphical user interface (GUI) in a web browser” amounts to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation “provide instructions for rendering a graphical user interface (GUI) in a web browser; obtain input data from the web browser” amounts to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation “automatically display in association with the third GUI control a plurality of groups within the plurality of sensitive attribute values” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. The mere outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)). The limitation “process the input data based on the prediction column, the ground truth column and the one or more sensitive attribute columns to generate one or more algorithmic fairness analysis” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. The mere outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)). The limitation “display one or more visual reports associated with the one or more algorithmic fairness analysis” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. The mere outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)). The limitation “one or more processors; and non-transitory computer readable medium” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to on more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Note, the mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. At Step 2B : The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer, mere field of use, and using generic computer components (machine learning i.e. ML) as a tool are carried over and do not provide significantly more. With respect to the “process…; and display…” identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), " iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93" and "i. … transmitting data over a network, …Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)". With respect to the “processor and non-transitory computer-readable storage media” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, see e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim appears to be ineligible. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The remaining independent claim 10 and 19 fall short the 35 USC 101 requirement under the same rationale. The dependent claims 2-9 and 111-18 when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Claim 2 recites “identify a reference group from the plurality of groups”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception. Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale. Claim 3 recites “receive a merging input produced by the GUI to merge at least two groups in the plurality of groups, and responsive to the merging input, cause the GUI to display a merged group in place of the at least two groups”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for merging at least two groups in the plurality of groups, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale. Claim 4 recites “wherein the plurality of groups is displayed in an editable field in the GUI, and the merging input is produced using the editable field”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for displaying in an editable field in the GUI, and the merging input is produced using the editable field, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale. Claim 5 recites “wherein the merging input comprises a first bracket and a second bracket inputted around the at least two groups”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception. Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale. Claim 6 recites “identify a reference group from the plurality of groups”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception. Claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale. Claim 7 recites “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive a sixth input produced by a sixth GUI control to identify a bottom percentile”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception. Claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale. Claim 8 recites “wherein the one or more algorithmic fairness analysis is selected from the group consisting of: a disparate impact report, a calibration curves report, an average predicted score report, and a performance metrics report”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception. Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale. Claim 9 recites “wherein the input data is a comma-separated value file”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception. Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN M CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-4032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30a-10p(Midflex). 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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571)272-9767. 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. /JEAN M CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 March 21, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/240,882 Page 2 Art Unit: 2159