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 .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 05/15/2024 with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (REMARKS, p.2):
PNG
media_image1.png
409
994
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner reminds to the Applicant that during patent examination, the pending claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. See MPEP 2111.01. Moreover, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With these principles in mind, Examiner maintains the position that: focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, the pending claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 18-19 and 21-40 of the present application are directed to an abstract idea of determining an alarm of anomalous conditions in a pipeline/flowline without significantly more.
Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A - Prong 2 asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In the instant case, various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claims fail to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claimed abstract idea into a particular practical application. In particular, in regard to claim 1 for example, the limitations of “measuring one or more properties in the pipeline or the flowline via one or more sensors and monitoring real-time data in the pipeline or the flowline based on signals received from the one or more sensors, wherein the pipeline or flowline includes a plurality of nodes, the nodes including at least one or more inlets and one or more outlets” read on merely a process step of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea. Furthermore, these limitations do not require any particular devices or sensors to perform the “measuring”, while “monitoring real-time data” can be done with the aid of pen and paper. The “pipeline or flowline” is not specified and neither is “the nodes including at least one or more inlets and one or more outlets” (pipeline nodes are commonly known as the physical machines that host one or more pipeline processes; pipeline inlet can have many different functions or structures depending on its purpose such as filling, allowing stormwater to flow into a facility, pumping stations, bringing high-pressure gas/flow from a place to another, etc.). As such, claim 1 would monopolize the identified abstract idea across a wide range of applications rather than integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. That is, the inclusion of such generic recitation for necessary data gathering, which is “well-understood, routine, and/or conventional activity in the field, does not impose any significant weight or meaningful limits on performing the abstract idea. Applicant’s argument in this regard is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant further argues (REMARKS, p.2):
PNG
media_image2.png
325
987
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
285
973
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in detail in section 4 below, the limitation of “generating a probability metric based on the real-time data using a prediction service, wherein the prediction service uses a multi-branch artificial neural network having at least one convolution layer” reads on a process step that merely employs mathematical relationships to manipulate existing information to generate additional information (see Applicant’s Spec. para. [0027]-[0041]) thus falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” Grouping of Abstract Ideas. The recitation of the “real-time data” and the physical properties/parameters such as “a relative flow rate difference of a fluid in a pipeline/flowline”, “a fluid comprising at least one hydrocarbon” or “a majority of the fluid is water”, which are all deemed well-understood and/or conventional in the art, is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because only generally links the intended use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Applicant further argues (REMARKS, p.3):
PNG
media_image4.png
450
1002
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, the pending claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 18-19 and 21-40 of the present application are directed to an abstract idea of determining an alarm of anomalous conditions in a pipeline/flowline without significantly more. The improvement of the claimed algorithm, if there is any improvement, appears to be merely related to the algorithm itself, such as a probability metric using AI-based prediction service (i.e., (mathematical concepts or relationships), for detecting an anomaly in a pipeline or a flowline. This kind of improvement of an abstract algorithm does not improve the functioning of the underlying general-purpose computer or produce an improvement to other technology or technical field. Put it differently, an improved abstract algorithm is still an abstract algorithm but does integrate the judicial exception into an improved practical application.
Applicant further argues (REMARKS, p.3-4):
PNG
media_image5.png
331
1000
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. With the BRI to the claims, Examiner asserts that the claim (e.g., claim 1) as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
According to MPEP § 2106.04(d): Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The Examiner has taken various considerations to determine whether any additional element of the claims of the present application would be sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. However, in all of the respects, the claims fail to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application.
In particular, as discussed in detail in section 4 below, the additional elements recited in the pending claims, including a pipeline/flowline and a fluid comprising at least one hydrocarbon etc., all are not qualified for a meaningful limitation because they only generally link the intended use of the identified judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In combination, the pending claims merely recite (at most) an improved algorithm (or improved math) for pipeline/flowline anomaly detection but do not produce an improvement like the improved logic in Enfish which can structurally improve the ways of storing/retrieving data, thus making everything the computer does “improved”. In the present application, however, the abstract idea is not improving the functioning of the pipeline/flowline, the hydrocarbon processing, or any device that is involved. Performing the determination does not improve the underlying pipeline in any way and an improved mathematical algorithm is still an abstract idea. The judicial exception is therefore not integrated into a practical application.
The rest of the Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 are reliant upon the issues discussed above, and are deemed to be non-persuasive as well for the reasons provided above. The rejection is there maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
4. Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 18-19, and 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 18-19, and 21-40 describe an abstract idea of detecting an anomaly in a pipeline or a flowline. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
A method for detecting an anomaly in a pipeline or a flowline, the method comprising:
measuring one or more properties in the pipeline or the flowline via one or more sensors;
monitoring real-time data in the pipeline or the flowline based on signals received from the one or more sensors, wherein the pipeline or flowline includes a plurality of nodes, the nodes including at least one or more inlets and one or more outlets;
generating a probability metric based on the real-time data using a prediction service, wherein the prediction service uses a multi-branch artificial neural network having at least one convolution layer, wherein a first branch of the multi- branch artificial neural network includes a plurality of first features and wherein a second branch of the multi-branch artificial neural network includes a plurality of second features, wherein the first branch receives input parameters of at least a relative flow rate difference and a change in number of inlets of the pipeline or flowline, flowline, wherein the relative flow rate difference is the relative flow rate difference of a fluid in the pipeline or flowline, and wherein the fluid comprises at least one hydrocarbon;
determining whether to add an alarm, based, at least in part on the probability metric; and
if there are one or more active alarms, performing an action based on the active alarm.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
Method
2A - Prong 1:
Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
See bolded limitations above, which recite the abstract idea of determining an alarm of anomalous conditions in a pipeline or a flowline.
Specifically, the limitation of generating a probability metric merely employs mathematical relationships to manipulate existing information to generate additional information thus falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” Grouping of Abstract Ideas.
The limitation of determining whether to add an alarm reads on a mental step that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2:
Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The pipeline is not specified and neither is the fluid (lots of machines and applications have pipes/fluids). As such, Claim 1 would monopolize the algorithm across a wide range of applications.
The limitations of measuring one or more properties in the pipeline or the flowline via one or more sensors, and monitoring real-time data in the pipeline or the flowline based on signals received from the one or more sensors, as well as the limitation of the pipeline or flowline including a plurality of nodes, the nodes including at least one or more inlets and one or more outlets, are all deemed to be broad or generic. The inclusion of such generic recitation for necessary data gathering, which is “well-understood, routine, and/or conventional activity in the field, for practicing the mathematical algorithm, does not impose any significant weight or meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The newly added limitations, including: “wherein the relative flow rate difference is the relative flow rate difference of a fluid in the pipeline or flowline” and “a fluid compris[ing] at least one hydrocarbon” or “wherein a majority of the fluid is water”, merely inherit attributes of the claimed abstract idea but are not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, parameters such as “a relative flow rate difference of a fluid in a pipeline/flowline”, “a fluid comprising at least one hydrocarbon” or “a majority of the fluid is water” are all well-understood and/or conventional in the art. They do not add anything which would amount for "significant more".
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
The conditional statement of performing an action based on the active alarm is generically recited w/o details so it is an insignificant post solution activity and/or a field of use limitation, which does not amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims 2, 6, and 8-9 inherit attributes of the claim from which they depend, and do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The dependent claims either extend (narrow) the abstract idea or claim additional elements which do not amount for "significant more" because they are generically recited and/or conventional and well-understood in the art.
Claims 18-19 and 21-40 are rejected for the same reason as for claims 1-2, 6, and 8-9. In particular, claims 18-19 and 21-40 recite abstract ideas of predicting an alarm of anomalous conditions in a pipeline or a flowline wherein a majority of the fluid is water, then triggering an alarm. The claims are not integrated into a particular practical application. The recitation of the generic computer adapted for performing the abstract algorithm is "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field. Moreover, similar to claims 1-2, 6 and 8-9, there is no additional elements in the claims that are significantly more than the abstract idea.
Hence claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 18-19, and 21-40 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Examiner’s Note
5. While there are related references that discuss techniques of detecting an anomaly in a pipeline or a flowline based on artificial intelligence models, the prior art of record do not specifically provide teachings for method/system of generating a probability metric using a prediction service, wherein the prediction service uses a multi-branch convolutional neural network (CNN) having at least one convolution layer, wherein a first branch of the multi-branch CNN includes a plurality of first features and wherein a second branch of the multi-branch CNN includes a plurality of second features, wherein the first branch receives input parameters of at least a relative flow rate difference and a change in number of inlets of the pipeline or flowline, wherein the relative flow rate difference is the relative flow rate difference of a fluid in the pipeline or flowline, and wherein the fluid comprises at least one hydrocarbon or a majority of the fluid is water. It is these limitations found in each of the claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 18-19 and 21-40, as they are recited in independent claim 1, 18, 31 or 36, respectively, that would make these claims distinguish over the prior art.
Conclusion
6. 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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/X.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/MOHAMED CHARIOUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights