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 .
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, 8-13, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Categories. Claims 1-7 and 8-13 recite a method, and claims 14-20 recite a system comprising memory and a processor. Therefore, the claims fall within the statutory categories of a process and a machine.
Step 2A, Prong One: Judicial Exception. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the steps of “determining…a first cone of influence”, “determining…a first apex point”, and “determining a location of a first safety mechanism”.
Claim 8 recites similar determining steps and further recites “verifying the first location”.
Claim 14 recites a processor configured to “perform path tracing” to determine the cone of influence and apex point, and “determine a location”.
Pursuant to the USPTO’s 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Update (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-07-17/pdf/2024-15377.pdf), the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas includes concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Furthermore, the “mathematical concepts” grouping includes mathematical relationships and calculations. Evaluating a circuit schematic to trace data paths, assessing the structural connectivity to identify an intersecting convergence node (an apex point), and verifying a theoretical location are logical evaluations and mathematical graph traversal concepts. These steps can practically be performed by a human using pen and paper to visually trace a circuit diagram. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Practical Application. The claims do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. To determine whether a claim integrates an exception into a practical application by improving a technology, the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement by including the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement. While the specification describes the technological improvement as providing wider fault coverage, and improving fault detection metrics by placing safety mechanisms in optimal locations, claim 1, 8, and 14 merely determine or verify where a safety mechanism should be placed. They entirely omit any active steps of physically or logically modifying the circuit design, relocating the safety mechanism, or inserting the logic into the netlist to actually achieve the improved fault coverage.
As highlighted in the in 2024 AI SME Update, merely adding the words “apply it” or reciting mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration. The August 2025 Memorandum (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-101-20250804.pdf) cautions that a claim fails to integrate an exception if it merely recites the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting the details of how the solution is accomplished within the technological environment.
This rejection aligns squarely with the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf) provided by the USPTO:
In Example 47 (Anomaly Detection), claim 2 was deemed ineligible because it merely used a computer to detect and analyze anomalies without taking remedial action. Conversely, claim 3 was eligible because it actively dropped malicious packets and block traffic.
In Example 48 (Speech Separation), claim 1 was ineligible because it stopped at using an AI model to determine embedding vectors. Claim 2 was eligible because it actively synthesized those vectors into new speech waveforms.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 mirror the ineligible examples because they stop at calculating the targeted node (the apex point) without taking the active remedial step of altering the circuit design. Determining a location without actively applying it to alter the technological environment represents mere instructions to apply the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept. The claims do not amount to significantly more than the idea itself. The additional elements in the claims include a generic “processor” and “memory storing instrucitons” (claim 14), along with receiving a “circuit design” and a “safety relevant input” (claims 1, 8, 14). Using a generic processor and memory merely as a tool to perform the abstract mental process of tracing paths and determining a location does not supply an inventive concept. “Receiving” data (such as a circuit design) is an insignificant extra solution activity and represents well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering.
Therefore, considering the claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, the claims do not provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 8, and 14 are drawn to patent-ineligible subject matter. Claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 are rejected for their dependency from base claims 1, 8, and 14, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 8-13, and 14-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the § 101 rejections set forth above.
Claims 1-20 are allowable because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a method or system having all the combinations of elements or steps as recited in and required by independent claims 1, 8, or 14, particularly including, among other things, the following:
In claim 1 and similarly recited claims 8 and 14, determining a first cone of influence and a first apex point of the first cone of influence, and determining/verifying a location of a first safety mechanism to be placed within the circuit design based on the first cone of influence and the first apex point.
Claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 depend from claims 1, 8, and 14, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner SURESH MEMULA whose telephone number is (571)272-8046, and any inquiry for a formal Applicant initiated interview must be requested via a PTOL-413A form and faxed to the Examiner's personal fax phone number: (571) 273-8046. Furthermore, Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner via email (suresh.memula@uspto.gov) on the condition the communication is pursuant to and in accordance with MPEP §502.03 and §713.01. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 9am-6pm. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Jack Chiang, can be reached on 571-272-7483. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned (i.e., central fax phone number) is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SURESH MEMULA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851