DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/5/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Respond to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 6/5/2026 has been entered. Claim 1 and 17 are amended. Claim 1, 3 – 5 and 9 – 17 are pending and have been examined.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 section has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s remarks and amendment.
Respond to Argument
Applicant's remark filed on 6/5/2026 regarding claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 section has been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant stated in page 1 – 2 that the disclosed system “incorporates an embedded network and interfaces to sensors and other relevant peripherals, and cannot be said to be merely a ‘conventional’ computer upon which the claimed method launches.” Examiner notes that Claims 1 – 16 are method claim. The recited “model”, “Bayesian Network”, “nodes”, “transition to the successive node” within BRI, can be a decision making process that involves observation, evaluation, judgements and can be performed in human mind with or without physical aid. The stated interaction with sensor either reading or writing are well-understood, routine, conventional activity recognized in MPEP 2106.05(d)i - receiving or transmitting data over a network. Even with system claim, Claim 17, the mere recitation of the included “memory”, “processor” does not separate the claim from performing abstract ideas in a general “conventional computer”. The limitation of “a sensor” in the “autonomous robotic system” is recited in high generality and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Applicant further state that “the table associated with the nodes and the values therein for evaluating the intrusion. These tables define a tangible data structure or storage location corresponding to the physical sensors”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As illustrated in Fig. 3 of the instant application, a person can easily draw/write a table/data structure with values using pen and paper (or using a computer) to help the decision making process. Examiner further notes that developing and calculating probability using a Bayesian Network (model), within BRI, can also be interpreted as mathematical calculation using mathematical relationship and/or having mathematical formulas or equations and thus can falls under Mathematical Concept abstract ideas.
Therefore, Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
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.
Claim 1, 3 – 5, 9 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1,
Step 1 Analysis
Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 1 recites the abstract ideas in the following limitations:
developing a model for identifying a transition from a prior machine state to a current machine state;
generating a set of nodes, each node of the set of nodes indicative of a relevant state
identifying a set of nodes indicative of a successive state the nodes including at least a sensor node;
designating, for each node, a level and a table, the level indicative of an intrusion point in the autonomous system and the tables designating a metric of indicative of the intrusion, the levels including system, hardware, software, AI robustness and supply chain, each level configured for determining an intrusion probability associated with an attack directed to the respective level, the probability based on: i) an assurance value of the level, ii) a potential reward to an adversary, iii) a probability of adversary exploit damage, and iv) a probability of an adversary taking action to exploit"
comparing the generated set of nodes with the nodes indicative of the successive state to identify a probability of a security intrusion;
evaluating, at one of the nodes, the signal·
computing and establishing a transition to the successive node based on a result of the evaluation·
evaluating a probability that the current machine state is indicative of a breach
The steps of developing, identifying, designating, comparing, and evaluating recite observation, evaluation and judgement mental processes and can practically be performed in human mind with or without physical aid and thus falls under the mental processes group of abstract idea.
The steps of generating nodes and computing/establishing a transition to successive node, within BRI, involving drawing graph and calculating on a paper which are also full under the observation, evaluation and judgement mental processes and may involve mathematical calculations. Thus, these steps also full under abstract ideas.
And thus, the claim falls within judicial exception of abstract idea and requires further analysis under Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements along with the abstract ideas:
an autonomous system
receiving, from one or more sensors, a signal indicative of an intrusion
deploying the model in an autonomous system;
receiving, from one or more of the sensors, a signal indicative of an intrusion·
the sensor node responsive to a sensor in the autonomous system
The additional element of an autonomous system is recited in high generality and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The step of receiving and deploying are recited at high level generality which add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 directs to abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis:
The additional element of an autonomous system is recited in high generality and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The step of receiving and deploying are well-understood, routine, conventional activity recognized in MPEP 2106.05(d)i - receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Claim 1 does not recite additional element. Base on the depending claim, Claim 1 do not contribute inventive concept.
Regarding Claim 3 – 5, 9 – 16,
Claim 3 – 5, 9 – 16 fails to remedy these deficiencies and thus rejected with the same reason.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is corresponding system claim of Claim 1. The recited element of using processor and memory to process and store nodes and relations in a Bayesian network are recited in high generality and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), or no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Thus, Claim 17 is rejected with same reason.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, 3 – 5 and 9 – 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome any outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Specifically, consider Figure 3, Fig. 5, table I - VIII and specification page 22 – 24 of the instant application, none of the prior fairly discloses either along or combination the implementation of network model described in the independent claims 1 and 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: DiLuoffo et al., “Survey on Trust Metrics for Autonomous Robotic System”, which teaches the 5 levels of intrusion points for the consideration of a robotic system and a review of different assessment techniques including Bayesian Networks in high level. Wang, et al., CN1097110878, which teaches the use of Bayesian Network to assess the dynamic threat of unmanned underwater vehicle in its environment.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIEN MING CHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-9354. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9 am - 5 pm.
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, PATEL HITESH can be reached on 571-270-5442. 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.
/SHIEN MING CHOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
7/17/26
Prosecution Insights