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. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection on 06/11/2026. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/08/2026 has been entered.
3. The following is a non-Final Office Action. In response to Examiner’s Final Action of 02/20/2026, Applicant, on 05/08/2026 in a Response After Final Action, amended Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 17 and 18; and cancelled Claims 6, 7, 15, 21 and 22. Claims 5 and 14 were previously cancelled; and Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 19 and 20 are as originally or previously presented.
Claims 1-4, 8-13 and 16-20 are pending in the current application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
4. Applicant’s amendments and arguments are acknowledged.
5. The prior 35 USC §101 rejection maintained despite Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-4, 8-13 and 16-20 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.
8. At Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 10 recites A method comprising: obtaining .. a fault 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 fault tree data structure is a function of its logic gate connection and its child nodes, wherein the logic gate connection corresponds to a truth table of input and output states for the logic gate connection; converting .. the fault tree data structure into a tree data structure using a truth table connection in place of the logic gate connection, wherein the truth table connection for each logic gate connection is compressed into a single input state and a single output state for each logic gate connection; .. wherein the tree data structure contains a top node, one or more internal nodes, one or more leaf nodes, and compressed truth table connections for each top node and intermediate node; 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 using the compressed truth table connections for the top node and the internal node; 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 using the compressed truth table connections associated with the top node and the internal nodes in each dependent chain, 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 using the compressed truth table connections associated with the top table node and the internal nodes in the multiple dependent chains 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, executed by the processor, load the tree data structure in the memory, configure the memory according to the tree data structure, wherein the processor processes the system-level failure risk of the system plant from contents of the tree data structure, via at least one of one or more computing devices, loading the tree data structure in a memory of the one or more computing devices, configuring the memory according to the tree data structure and processing the system-level failure risk of the system plant from contents of the tree data structure, A non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying a program executable in at least one computing device, when executed, via at least one of the one or more computing devices, configuring the memory according to the tree data structure and processing the system-level failure risk of the system plant from contents of the tree data structure, 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 Claims are 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 Claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
At Step 2A Prong One, dependent Claims 2-4, 8, 9, 11-13, 16 and 18-20 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, 8, 9, 11-13, 16 and 18-20 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 Claims.
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 2-4, 8, 9, 11-13, 16 and 18-20 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 Claims.
Therefore, Claims 1-4, 8-13 and 16-20 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
9. Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered, but they are found not persuasive with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
10. Applicant argues (at pp. 13-17, p. 18) 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 by analogy with Enfish and McRO.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in detail at paragraph 8 above in this office action, the amended claims recite abstract ideas at Step 2A Prong One, falling under the categories of Mathematical Concepts and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (see MPEP 2106). The claims are not directed to an improvement in technology because calculating the binary state failure probability of a failure event using a tree data structure with compressed truth table connections as clamed in the instant application is not an improvement in technology but an improvement in the underlying abstract idea. 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)).
11. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments (p. 17) that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application 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 furthermore that PTAB decisions are not precedential unless designated as such, with regard to Ex Parte Williamson.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Rutt et al., "Distributed dynamic event tree generation for reliability and risk assessment", 2006 IEEE Challenges of Large Applications in Distributed Environments, Paris, 2006, pp. 61-70 describes the analysis of multiple dynamic event-tree simulations and the assessment and propagation of uncertainty on the state of a nuclear plant.
Bakucz et al. (German Patent Publication DE 102022203907 A1) describes fault tree analysis for predicting the probability of failure in a system modeled as a tree-like logical link of causative events.
Dugan et al. (US Patent Publication 20110137703 A1) describes a method and system for Probabilistic Risk Assessment using a combination of Event Tree (which represents a complex super system of events) and Fault Tree (which represents sub systems of events) models to analyze potential failure scenarios to determine their probability of occurrence.
Mosleh et al. (US Patent Publication 20070011113 A1) describes a method and system for determining a probability associated with a causal scenario including an initiating event, at least one pivotal event and an end state, with the causal scenario modeled by a first causal model characterized by a plurality of first interconnected nodes defining a termination of the causal scenario in the end state via Boolean states of a variable at each first node.
13. 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
Prosecution Insights