DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
2. The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Action of 09/11/2025, Applicant, on 12/112025, amended Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15-17 and 19; cancelled Claims 5 and 14; and added new Claims 21 and 22. Claims 2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 18 and 20 are as originally or previously presented.
Claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-22 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
3. Applicant’s amendments and arguments are acknowledged.
4. The prior Claim Objections withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendments.
5. The prior 35 USC §101 rejection of Claims maintained despite Applicant's amendments and arguments.
6. The prior 35 USC §103 rejection of Claims withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendments and arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, although they are drawn to statutory categories of system (machine), method (process) or medium (manufacture) they are also directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
9. At Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 10 recites A method comprising: obtaining .. a tree data structure of a system-level failure risk of a system plant, wherein a binary state failure probability of an internal node in the tree data structure is a function of its logic gate connection and its child nodes; for a condition where the tree data structure has only independent nodes, computing .. a binary state failure probability of a failure event represented as a top node of the tree data structure; for a condition where the tree data structure has multiple dependent chains having a common dependent node, evaluating .. the binary state failure probability of each dependent chain separately, wherein for the condition where the tree data structure has multiple dependent chains having the common dependent node, the binary state failure probability of the failure event represented as the top node of the tree data structure is computed by calculating coefficients of a linear expression for each dependent chain’s binary state failure probability and using the calculated coefficients to determine coefficients of the linear expression for the binary state failure probability of the top node and estimating the binary state failure probability of the top node based on the coefficients of the linear expression for the binary state failure probability of the top node and the binary state failure probability of the common dependent node; and outputting .. the binary state failure probability for the failure event represented as the top node of the tree data structure, which is an abstract idea of Mathematical Concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), because a tree data structure and logic gate connections are mathematical relationships. It is also an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, particularly fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk), because determining a system failure probability is a business practice for mitigating risk. Claims 1 and 17 recite a similar abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis for the independent Claims, the judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application because the independent Claims, including additional elements such as at least one computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and computer-executable instructions stored in the memory, load the tree data structure in the memory, via at least one of one or more computing devices, A non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying a program executable in at least one computing device, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The Claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B of the analysis, the independent Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine activity or use of computers (as evidenced by Figure 17 and paragraphs 106, 107, 109-111 of the published specification in the instant Application, and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant Claim, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
At Step 2A Prong One, dependent Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-13, 15, 16 and 18-22 incorporate (and therefore recite) the abstract idea noted in independent Claim from which they depend, and further recite extensions of that abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-13, 15, 16 and 18-22 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims from which they depend. These dependent Claims therefore do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2A Prong Two for the independent Claim.
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-13, 15, 16 and 18-22 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims from which they depend. These dependent Claims therefore do not recite anything that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2B for the independent Claim.
Therefore, Claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-eligible subject matter. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573__ U.S. 2014.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered; they are found persuasive with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, which has therefore been withdrawn, but are found not persuasive with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
11. Applicant argues (at pp. 12-14) that, at Step 2A Prong One of the Subject Matter Eligibility analysis, the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea but are directed to an improvement in technology because “computational efficiency is demonstrated .. the computational time for an exemplary approach of the present disclosure increases linearly .. whereas the computational time increases exponentially for the traditional approach”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in detail at paragraph 9 above in this office action, the amended claims recite abstract ideas which fall under the categories of Mathematical Concepts and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions (see MPEP 2106.04(I)).
Examiner notes that claim elements such as a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and computer-executable instructions stored in the memory, are additional elements as noted at Step 2A Prong Two of the Subject Matter Eligibility analysis; such generic computer elements are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
12. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments (pp. 15-16) that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application by the improved efficiency of computation at Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis; as noted at MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “"claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept”.
Examiner notes that PTAB decisions are not precedential unless designated as such, with regard to Ex Parte Williamson.
13. Applicant also argues (at pp. 12, 15) that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 by analogy with the claim language of Enfish.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The fact pattern in the instant application, pertaining to a more computationally efficient method of fault tree analysis (see paragraph 81 of the Specification: “An exemplary approach is developed for fault trees with a dependent node and multiple chains connecting the dependent node. The logic gates are converted into compressed truth tables to achieve the desired efficiency”) is clearly different to that in Enfish, which pertains to self-referential data structures.
Examiner notes that PTAB decisions are not precedential unless designated as such, with regard to Ex Parte Vermette.
Conclusion
14. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
He et al. (US Patent Publication US 20220066853 A1) describes a system and method for failure diagnosis using fault tree analysis.
Guay (US Patent Publication US 20170177424 A1) describes a system and method for computing results that substantially align with a sequence of state changes to a fault tree, while reducing the amount of time needed to calculate and output the results for a safety assessment.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARJIT S BAINS whose telephone number is (571) 270-0317. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-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, Wu Rutao can be reached on (571)272-6045. 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.
/SARJIT S BAINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623