DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The following NON-FINAL office action is in response to Applicant communication filed on 07/31/2025 regarding application 17/553,217. Claims 1, 6-7, 11, 15, 17 and 21-22 have been amended. Thus, Claims 1-8, 10-19 and 21-22 are pending have been rejected.
Status of the Application
2. Claims 1-8, 10-19 and 21-22 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Response to Amendments
3. Applicant’s amendment filed on 07/31/2025 necessitated new grounds of rejection in this office action.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
4. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/08/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments, see page 10 filed on 07/31/2025, with respect to the Claim Objections for Claims 1, 17 and 21, have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Objections for Claims 1, 17 and 21 are withdrawn. Please note due to Applicant’s proposed claim amendments, Examiner adds a minor claim informality as a claim objection to Dependent Claim 16. See the Claim Objections Section shown below.
6. Applicant’s arguments, see page 10 filed on 07/31/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) Rejections for Claims 1-8 and 10-19, have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) Claim Rejections for Claims 1-8 and 10-19 are withdrawn.
7. Due to Applicant’s proposed claim amendments, Examiner adds a 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a) (1) rejection for Claims 1-8, 10-19 and 21-22. See the 35 U.S.C. 102 Claim Rejections Section shown below.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Arguments
8. Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 arguments, filed with respect to Claims 1-8, 10-19 and 21-22 have been fully considered, but they are found not persuasive (see Applicant Remarks, Pages 10-14, dated 07/31/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Argument #1:
(A). Applicant argues that amended Independent Claim 1 includes the steps of “wherein the automatically deducing includes automatically determining a range-based category of the signal using the sampling rate and the value range of the signal, normalizing the one or more values of the signal, and extracting a feature of the signal by applying a transformation to the normalized values of the signal” and (2) “upon said deducing, creating a business intelligence (BI) data repository by automatically associating the one or more values of the signal with one or more taxonomies of the petroleum service environment based on the deduced source of the signal and a communication protocol used to stream the signal” which provides a particular way of “automatically deducing” and a particular way of “creating a BI data repository” such that the purported judicial exceptions are not tied up preventing others from practicing them under 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis under Pathway A (see Applicant Remarks, 1st-2nd ¶’s of Page 11, dated 09/16/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner submits that the “Supreme Court” has described the concern driving the judicial exceptions as “preemption”, the Courts do not use preemption as a stand-alone test for eligibility. For example, even though the claims in “Flook” did not wholly preempt the mathematical formula, and the claims in “Mayo” were directed to narrow laws that may have limited applications, the Supreme Court nonetheless held them ineligible because they failed to amount to significantly more than the recited exceptions. Examiner also submits that the Federal Circuit has followed the Supreme Court’s lead in rejecting arguments that a lack of total preemption equates with eligibility (see e.g. buySafe 765 F.3d at 1355; Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716. Examiner instead submits that questions of preemption are inherent in the two-part framework from “Alice Corp” and “Mayo” and are resolved by using this framework to distinguish between preemptive claims, and “those that integrate the building blocks into something more […]. However, Examiner submits that while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not guarantee that a claim is eligible. Even arguing that there are other ways to practice not to preempt an abstract idea, does not make the claim “less abstract” and eligible (see OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, 115 USPQ2d 1090 at page 1092 second to last ¶ further citing buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, 728 F.3dast 1345), or said differently “the availability of other possible computer-implemented methods […] does not assuage fears of blocking further innovation” (see The Money Suite Co. v. 21st Century Ins. & Fin. Co. v. 21st Century Ins. & Fin again citing OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. C-12-1233 EMC, 2012 WL 3985118, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2012). With respect to the streamline analysis, Examiner has further found the claimed invention not to: “clearly […] not seek[ing] to tie up any judicial exception such that others cannot practice it” and accordingly believes that the full eligibility analysis is appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Moreover, the claim limitations for Independent Claim 1 here for example; recites the abstract idea of organizing information by automatically associating signal values with taxonomies. The core of the claimed method is the processing and categorization of data. It involves: Using signal characteristics (sampling rate, value range) to determine a category. Applying a transformation to extract a feature. Creating a data repository by associating values with taxonomies. This falls into the category of "organizing human activity" or "mental processes." Organizing information by categorizing, normalizing, and associating data is a fundamental mental process that, when claimed generically and without technical improvement, is considered an abstract idea. Merely implementing this process on a computer does not make it eligible. The creation of a "business intelligence (BI) data repository" further confirms this is a method of organizing human activity. The claim describes gathering, analyzing, and presenting data, but does not claim a specific, non-conventional improvement to the underlying technology. The use of a "processor" to perform the steps is considered generic computer implementation and does not provide an inventive concept. Normalizing data, extracting features, and creating a data repository are routine and conventional data processing activities. Simply performing these steps with data from a specific technical field (petroleum service environment) is not enough to make the claim non-abstract. The claim essentially states "apply the abstract idea of organizing data to the petroleum service environment using a generic processor and create a BI repository." The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that adding the words "apply it" or a particular field of use to an abstract idea is not enough to secure a patent. Because the claims are directed to the abstract idea of organizing information (Step 2A, Prong 1) and lack an inventive concept that integrates the idea into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2), they are found to be patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Argument #2:
(B). Applicant argues that Claims 1-8, 10-19 and 21-22 recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under revised step 2a prong two of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis under Pathway B (see Applicant Remarks, Pages 11-13, dated 09/16/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, Applicant argues the amended Claim 1 includes “overseeing an operation of at least one asset at one or more drilling rigs or production platforms of the petroleum service environment based on an analysis of data in the BI data repository” and therefore recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under revised step 2a prong two of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis (see Applicant Remarks, last ¶ of Page 11, dated 09/16/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant arguments here, Examiner notes that Independent Claims 1, 11 and 21 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “an interface”, “signal”, “at least one processor” and “a business intelligence (BI) data repository”). These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to Independent Claims 1, 11 and 21, even if the steps of resulting in “mere collecting/mere receiving data” (e.g., “receiving a signal from an unknown source of a petroleum service environment” (see Independent Claim 1) & “an interface configured to receive a signal from an unknown source of a petroleum service environment” (see Independent Claim 11) & “obtaining one or more values of a signal generated from an unknown source in a petroleum service environment by observing the signal” (see Independent Claim 21)] when evaluated as additional elements, these activities at most amount to mere insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
With respect to the “selecting” limitation shown in Independent Claim 21, when considering the additional elements both individually and as a whole (in combination), these additional elements from the selecting limitation (e.g., “selecting one or more generic taxonomic types of the possible sources using the categories”) result in selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated which reflects mere insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05 (g)).
Examiner notes that the claim's use of a "processor" for "automatically deducing" the signal source is merely a generic computer implementation of an abstract idea. Generic use of a computer: The claim does not specify how the processor and the associated components are specifically configured or improved to execute this function in a novel, non-conventional way. Automating an abstract process on a general-purpose computer, without claiming an inventive improvement to the computer itself, is not considered a practical application. General link to a technological environment: While the claim mentions a "petroleum service environment," this is characterized as merely linking the abstract idea to a particular technological field or environment. It does not provide a specific, technical solution to a technical problem inherent to that environment. For example, the claim does not recite a technical problem with the data processing in this environment, nor does it describe how the claimed steps overcome that problem in an inventive way. Data gathering and analysis: The claim's initial step of "receiving a signal" and the subsequent steps of "determining characteristics" and "deducing" the source are viewed as routine data gathering and analysis. This activity, even when tied to a specific field like the petroleum industry, is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. It describes the collection and processing of information but does not add a meaningful physical or technological limitation to the abstract concepts. Insignificant extra-solution activity: The final steps—creating a BI data repository and overseeing an operation—are also seen as insignificant extra-solution activities. The BI repository is merely a way of organizing the output of the abstract idea (the deduced signal source), and overseeing an operation is a post-solution business activity. The additional elements simply add non-inventive, data-handling steps that are performed after the core abstract idea has been carried out. Under this interpretation, the claim's additional elements do not transform the abstract ideas into a patent-eligible invention. Instead, the claim is "directed to" the abstract ideas themselves. The overall method is viewed as merely applying a series of abstract steps (data analysis, deduction, data organization) in a specific business environment using a generic computer.
Therefore, Examiner maintains that Claims 1-8, 10-19 and 21-22 as currently recited do not contain additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2a prong 2 of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.
Argument #3:
(C). Specifically, Applicant argues the amended Claim 1 includes “automatically deducing a source of the signal in the petroleum service environment” and therefore recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under revised step 2a prong two of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis by improving the technological field of a communication system in a complicated petroleum service environment used stream signals according to communication protocols and sets forth a step that provides the improvement by including “automatically deducing” signal sources (see Applicant Remarks, 2nd ¶ of Page 12, dated 09/16/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s arguments here, Examiner notes that the step recited in Independent Claim 1 for example of: “automatically deducing a source of the signal in the petroleum service environment using a processor and the characteristics of the signal, wherein the automatically deducing includes automatically determining a range-based category of the signal using the sampling rate and the value range of the signal, normalizing the one or more values of the signal, and extracting a feature of the signal by applying a transformation to the normalized values of the signal” recites the abstract ideas categorized in “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” categories under step 2a prong 1. Examiner notes that under step 2a prong 1 for instance, the claim limitation step of: “automatically deducing a source of the signal in the petroleum service environment” recites determining a range-based category: This is a mental process of classifying data. Normalizing values: This is a mathematical concept. Extracting a feature by applying a transformation: This is also a mathematical concept. For step 2a prong 2, the steps of determining, normalizing, and transforming are standard computer and signal processing techniques. Simply applying these well-known techniques to a new field (the petroleum industry) does not add an "inventive concept". The claim uses a "processor," which is a generic computer element, and the steps could be performed mentally or with paper and pencil, even if less efficiently. The normalization and transformation steps likely rely on known mathematical algorithms. Applying a known algorithm, even for a new purpose, is generally not sufficient to make a claim patent-eligible under § 101. Allowing a patent on these basic signal processing steps would risk pre-empting the use of fundamental scientific concepts. If every application of standard signal analysis techniques were patentable, innovation might be impeded.
Argument #4:
(D). Specifically, Applicant argues the amended Claim 1 includes “automatically associating the one or more values of the signal with one or more taxonomies of the petroleum service environment based on the deduced source of the signal and a communication protocol used to stream the signal” and therefore recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under revised step 2a prong two of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis by the technical detail of using the communication protocol of the streamed signal for “automatically associating” when creating a BI data repository (see Applicant Remarks, 3rd ¶ of Page 12, dated 09/16/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s arguments here, Examiner notes that the step recited in Independent Claim 1 for example of: “upon said deducing, creating a business intelligence (BI) data repository by automatically associating the one or more values of the signal with one or more taxonomies of the petroleum service environment based on the deduced source of the signal and a communication protocol used to stream the signal” is likely to be characterized as an abstract idea under step 2a prong 1. This is because: Data collection and organization: Collecting and associating data is a fundamental and routine human activity. The "deduced source of the signal" and "communication protocol" serve as criteria for organizing information, which is a classic example of a method of organizing human activity. BI data repository: A BI data repository, such as a data warehouse, is a standard tool used for processing and analyzing data. Merely using a known tool for its intended purpose does not make a concept patentable. Business method: The overall concept falls into the category of a "business method" because it involves a method of processing data to aid in business decisions within the petroleum service environment. For step 2a prong 2, this claim limitation step of Independent Claim 1 appears to automate a standard business process on a generic computer. For example; Conventional computer functions: Using a computer to receive, organize, and store data is a conventional and routine computer function. Stating that this process occurs "automatically" does not make it inventive. Generic implementation: If the claim doesn't specify how the "automatically associating" step is done in an unconventional way, it could be viewed as simply using a general-purpose computer to perform a standard business task. Simply adding a computer to an abstract idea is insufficient to create an inventive concept. Lack of technical detail: The eligibility of the claim depends on providing sufficient technical detail about the implementation, specifically how the association is performed. If the claim merely describes the result—a populated BI repository—without explaining the underlying inventive technology, it risks being found to be an abstract idea.
Argument #5:
(E). Applicant argues that Claims 1-8, 10-19 and 21-22 recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions under revised step 2B of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis of “Pathway C” (see Applicant Remarks, Pages 13-14, dated 9/16/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, Applicant argues in amended Independent Claim 1 for example; that the step of “overseeing an operation of at least one asset at one or more drilling rigs or production platforms of the petroleum service environment based on analysis of data in the BI data repository” recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions under revised step 2B of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis (see at least Applicant Remarks, 1st ¶ of Page 13, dated 09/16/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response, Examiner refers Applicant to Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis section (e.g., Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101 section shown below) shown for step 2B particularly for Independent Claims 1, 11 and 21. The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions, because they are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exceptions. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP § 2106.05I.A. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in these claims with the abstract idea which include: (1) adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, (2) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and providing the results to the user on a computer, and (3) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
With respect to Independent Claims 1, 11 and 21, even if the steps of resulting in “mere collecting/mere receiving data” (e.g., “receiving a signal from an unknown source of a petroleum service environment” (see Independent Claim 1) & “an interface configured to receive a signal from an unknown source of a petroleum service environment” (see Independent Claim 11) & “obtaining one or more values of a signal generated from an unknown source in a petroleum service environment by observing the signal” (see Independent Claim 21)] are evaluated as additional elements, these activities at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which has been recognized as Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (WURC), and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) ii - Receiving or Transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
With respect to the “selecting” limitation shown in Independent Claim 21, when considering the additional elements both individually and as a whole (in combination), these additional elements from the selecting limitation (e.g., “selecting one or more generic taxonomic types of the possible sources using the categories”) result in selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated which reflects mere insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05 (g)).
With respect to Applicant’s mentioning of “physicality” (e.g., see Applicant Remarks at 1st ¶ of Page 13 dated 09/16/2025: “with respect to Applicant’s assertion of a “physical overseeing” of petroleum platforms or drilling rigs” regarding petroleum operations of a petroleum service environment based on an analysis of the BI data”) for step 2B of the Alice v. Mayo analysis, Examiner refers Applicant to MPEP § 2106.05 (I) (A): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2B. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception is not in itself an inventive concept and does not guarantee eligibility. The fact that a computer "necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm," is beside the point. There is no dispute that a computer is a tangible system (in § 101 terms, a "machine"), or that many computer-implemented claims are formally addressed to patent-eligible subject matter. But if that were the end of the § 101 inquiry, an applicant could claim any principle of the physical or social sciences by reciting a computer system configured to implement the relevant concept.”.
The claim's broad language about analyzing data for oversight, without specifying a non-conventional technical improvement in hardware, data collection, or analysis, Examiner notes does not satisfy this step.
Argument #6:
(E). Applicant argues that Independent Claim 21 recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions under revised step 2B of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis of “Pathway C” due to the step of “using a machine learning model to correlate the extracted feature with known sources, wherein the machine learning model is trained using historical sensor signals of petroleum service environments to determine correlations between sensors and signals based on features of the signals” (see Applicant Remarks, 3rd-4th ¶’s of Page 13, dated 9/16/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 remarks here, Examiner notes that this step in Independent Claim 21 of “using a machine learning model to correlate the extracted feature with known sources, wherein the machine learning model is trained using historical sensor signals of petroleum service environments to determine correlations between sensors and signals based on features of the signals” involves receiving sensor signals and processing them to identify specific characteristics or features. Feature extraction, standing alone, is likely an abstract idea. It can be viewed as a mathematical or mental process of "identifying relationships within data," which courts have consistently found to be abstract. The specific type of data (e.g., petroleum sensors) does not automatically make the process non-abstract. Model Training: This involves training a machine learning model using historical sensor data to determine correlations between signals and specific features. Simply training a generic machine learning model, even on a new dataset, is a conventional technique and is considered a basic tool of scientific work. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly ruled that applying generic ML techniques to new data environments is insufficient to make a claim patent-eligible. Absent an improvement to the underlying ML model or training method itself, this step is also likely to be considered an abstract idea. Correlating extracted features with known sources: The process uses the trained model to correlate features from new sensor signals with previously identified sources (e.g., specific equipment, environmental conditions). The use of a generic algorithm to analyze data and display a result, such as a correlation, is a fundamental building block of human ingenuity. This step is a data-analysis function that can be performed mentally or with generic computing. Like the training step, without a specific, non-conventional technical solution, this correlation step remains an abstract idea. Because all three steps involve generic computational analysis and mathematical processes, the claim as a whole is directed to the abstract idea of using mathematical correlations to find patterns in data. For step 2a prong 2, the process recites applying the machine learning model to a specific field: "petroleum service environments." Merely limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, like petroleum environments, is not enough to create an inventive concept. The courts have been clear that a new data environment for an existing technique does not add significantly more. For step 2b, the process for the claim must specify how the application of the machine learning model provides a concrete technological improvement. Under the framework of Alice Corp. and recent Federal Circuit decisions, a patent claim for using a generic machine learning model to correlate historical and current sensor data from petroleum environments is likely to be found patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The steps involve abstract computational processes applied to a known problem space without disclosing any specific, technological improvements to the machine learning model, sensor technology, or computer system. Thus, Claims 1-8, 10-19 and 21-22 are ineligible with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.
Claim Objections
9. Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(A). Dependent Claim 16 recites the limitation: “The system of claim 11, wherein the automatically deducing further includes: determining a generic category of the signal by identifying a service provider and a format of the signal based on a transmitter of the signal and [[a]] communication protocol of the signal.” Examiner notes that Applicant amended Independent Claim 11 to include “a communication protocol used to stream the signal” wherein the second mentioning of “a communication protocol” should be referred to as “the communication protocol” and not “a communication protocol.” Therefore, for the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend Dependent Claim 16 to recite the following: “The system of claim 11, wherein the automatically deducing further includes: determining a generic category of the signal by identifying a service provider and a format of the signal based on a transmitter of the signal and [[ the communication protocol of the signal.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-8, 10-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-8, 10-19 and 21-22 are each focused to a statutory category namely a “method” or a “process” (Claims 1-8, 10) and 2 “apparatuses” or 2 “systems” (Claims 11-19 and 21-22).
Step 2A Prong One: Independent Claims 1, 11 and 21 recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely (see in bold except where strikethrough):
“” (see Independent Claim 21);
“receiving a signal from an unknown source of a petroleum service environment” (see Independent Claim 1);
“determining characteristics of the signal from one or more values of the signal, wherein the characteristics include a sampling rate and a value range of the signal” (see Independent Claim 1);
“ deducing a source of the signal in the petroleum service environment and the characteristics of the signal, deducing includes determining a range-based category of the signal using the sampling rate and the value range of the signal, normalizing the one or more values of the signal, and extracting a feature of the signal by applying a transformation to the normalized values of the signal” (see Independent Claim 1);
“upon said deducing, creating a business intelligence (BI) data associating the one or more values of the signal with one or more taxonomies of the petroleum service environment based on the deduced source of the signal and a communication protocol used to stream the signal” (see Independent Claim 1);
“overseeing an operation of at least one asset of the petroleum service environment based on an analysis of data in the BI data ” (see Independent Claim 1);
“ receive a signal from an unknown source of a petroleum service environment” (see Independent Claim 11);
“” (see Independent Claim 11);
“ determining characteristics of the signal from one or more values of the signal, wherein the characteristics include a sampling rate and a value range of the signal” (see Independent Claim 11);
“ deducing a source of the signal using the characteristics of the signal, wherein the deducing includes determining a range-based category of the signal using the sampling rate and the value range of the signal, normalizing the one or more values of the signal, and extracting a feature of the signal by applying a transformation to the normalized values of the signal” (see Independent Claim 11);
“when the source is deduced, creating a business intelligence (BI) data by associating the one or more values of the signal with one or more taxonomies of the petroleum service environment based on the source of the signal and a communication protocol used to stream the signal” (see Independent Claim 11);
“overseeing an operation of at least one asset of the petroleum service environment based on an analysis of data in the BI data ” (see Independent Claim 11);
“obtaining one or more values of a signal generated from an unknown source in the petroleum service environment by observing the signal” (see Independent Claim 21);
“ determining a sampling rate and a value range of the signal from the one or more values” (see Independent Claim 21);
“classify the signal within one or more categories according to at least the sampling rate and the value range” (see Independent Claim 21);
“normalizing the one or more values of the signal” (see Independent Claim 21);
“extracting a feature of the signal by applying a transformation to the normalized one or more values of the signal” (see Independent Claim 21);
“using a model to correlate the extracted feature with known sources, wherein the model is trained using historic signals of petroleum service environments to determine correlations between and signals based on features of the signals” (see Independent Claim 21);
“identifying possible sources of the signal from the known sources using previously identified signals” (see Independent Claim 21);
“selecting one or more generic taxonomic types of the possible sources using the categories” (see Independent Claim 21);
“deducing a source of the signal from the possible sources of the signal by observing the signal over at least one contextual event involving the one or more generic taxonomic types of the possible sources” (see Independent Claim 21);
“controlling one or more assets of the petroleum service environment associated with the source according to an analysis based on the one or more values and the one or more generic taxonomic types” (see Independent Claim 21).
These abstract idea limitations (as identified above in bold), under their broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as a whole, cover performance of their limitations as “Mental Processes” which pertains to (1) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments) or (2) using pen and paper as a physical aid, which in order to help perform these mental steps does not negate the mental nature of these limitations. The use of "physical aids" in implementing the abstract mental process, does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a) III C.
Additionally, or alternatively, these abstract idea limitations (as identified above in bold), under their broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as a whole, cover performance of their limitations as “Mathematical Concepts” which pertains to (3) mathematical relationships or (4) mathematical calculations.
That is, other than reciting (e.g., “an interface” & “signal” & “at least one processor” & “a business intelligence (BI) data repository”), nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being performed as “Mental Processes” Grouping which pertains to (1) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments or opinions) or (2) using pen and paper as a physical aid and additionally or alternatively as “Mathematical Concepts” Grouping which pertains to (3) mathematical relationships or (4) mathematical calculations.
Therefore, at step 2a prong 1, Yes, Claims 1-8, 10-19 and 21-22 recite an abstract idea. We proceed onto analyzing the claims at step 2a prong 2.
Step 2A Prong Two: With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent Claims 1, 11 and 21 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “an interface” & “signal” & “at least one processor” & “a business intelligence (BI) data repository”). These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to Independent Claims 1, 11 and 21, even if the steps of resulting in “mere collecting/mere receiving data” (e.g., “receiving a signal from an unknown source of a petroleum service environment” (see Independent Claim 1) & “an interface configured to receive a signal from an unknown source of a petroleum service environment” (see Independent Claim 11) & “obtaining one or more values of a signal generated from an unknown source in a petroleum service environment by observing the signal” (see Independent Claim 21)] when evaluated as additional elements, these activities at most amount to mere insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Independent Claims 1, 11 and 21: With respect to reliance on (e.g., “machine learning” (Independent Claim 21) & “automatically” (Claims 1, 11 and 21) & “historic sensor signals” (Independent Claim 21) & “communication protocol of the signal” (Claims 1, 11 and 21) & “production platforms” (Claims 1 and 11)) as additional elements shown in Independent Claims 1, 11 and 21, when considering the additional elements both individually and as an ordered combination as a whole with these recited claim limitations, these additional elements do not provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application under step 2a prong 2 due to: (1) limiting a particular field of use or technological environment pertaining to monitoring and analyzing data stream signals from a sensor or IoT device and creating a hierarchical template that associates values of the signal with one or more taxonomies of the petroleum service environment based on the source of the signal in a petroleum service environment (see MPEP § 2106.05 (h)) or (2) reciting mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or using a computer as a tool to “apply” the recited judicial exceptions (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, at step 2a prong 2, Claims 1-8, 10-19 and 21-22 are directed to the abstract idea and do not recite additional elements that integrate into a practical application.
Step 2B: (As explained in MPEP § 2106.05), it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent Claims 1, 11 and 21 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “an interface” & “signal” & “at least one processor” & “a business intelligence (BI) data repository”). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (computing environment) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Notably, Applicant’s Specification suggests that the claimed invention relies on nothing more than a general-purpose computer executing the instructions to implement the invention [e.g., see Applicant’s Specification ¶ [0024]: “The processor 210, the interface 220, and the memory 230 may be communicatively connected to one another using conventional means. The system 200 may be a physical computing system in a server, Docker Container or a virtual computing system implemented in a cloud server.” See also Applicant’s Specification ¶ [0025]: “The processor 210 can also allow the ADM 212 and the TXM 214 to communicate with one another. The processor 210 may be any data processing unit such as a central processing unit, a graphics processing unit, and a hardware accelerator.”].
Independent Claims 1, 11 and 21: With respect to reliance on (e.g., “machine learning” (Independent Claim 21) & “communication protocol of the signal” (Claims 1, 11 and 21) & “automatically” (Claims 1, 11 and 21) & “historic sensor signals” (Independent Claim 21) & “production platforms” (Claims 1 and 11)) as additional elements shown in Independent Claims 1, 11 and 21, when considered both individually and in combination (as a whole) with these recited claim limitations, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions under step 2B due to the following: (1) limiting a particular field of use or technological environment pertaining to monitoring and analyzing data stream signals from a sensor or IoT device and creating a hierarchical template that associates values of the signal with one or more taxonomies of the petroleum service environment based on the source of the signal in a petroleum service environment (see MPEP § 2106.05 (h)) or (2) reciting mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or using a computer as a tool to “apply” the recited judicial exceptions (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
With respect to the “selecting” limitation shown in Independent Claim 21, when considering the additional elements both individually and as a whole (in combination), these additional elements from the selecting limitation (e.g., “selecting one or more generic taxonomic types of the possible sources using the categories”) result in selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated which reflects mere insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05 (g)).
With respect to Independent Claims 1, 11 and 21, even if the steps of resulting in “mere collecting/mere receiving data” (e.g., “receiving a signal from an unknown source of a petroleum service environment” (see Independent Claim 1) & “an interface configured to receive a signal from an unknown source of a petroleum service environment” (see Independent Claim 11) & “obtaining one or more values of a signal generated from an unknown source in a petroleum service environment by observing the signal” (see Independent Claim 21)] are evaluated as additional elements, these activities at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which has been recognized as Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (WURC), and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) ii - Receiving or Transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent Claims 2-8, 10, 12-19 and 22 recite additional elements directed to: (e.g., “an interface” & “at least one processor” & “signal” & “a business intelligence (BI) data repository”), when considered individually and as an ordered combination (as a whole) with these claim limitations recite the same abstract idea(s) as shown in Independent Claims 1, 11 and 21 along with further steps/details that reflect “Mental Processes” Grouping which pertains to (1) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments) or (2) using pen and paper as a physical aid and additionally or alternatively as “Mathematical Concepts” Grouping which pertains to (3) mathematical relationships or (4) mathematical calculations.
Dependent Claims 2-5, 7, 12-14, 17 and 22 further narrow the abstract ideas, and are therefore still ineligible for the reasons previously provided in Steps 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B for Independent Claims 1, 11 and 21. Dependent Claims 6, 8, 16 and 18-19: With respect to reliance on (e.g., “machine learning” (see Dependent Claims 6 and 15) & “historic sensor signals” (see Dependent Claims 6, 8, 15 and 18) & “transmitter of the signal” (see Dependent Claim 16) & “communication protocol of the signal” (see Dependent Claim 16) & “sensors” (see Dependent Claims 6, 8, 15 and 18) & “IoTs” (see Dependent Claims 8 and 18) & “BI data repository” (see Dependent Claims 10 and 19) & “one equipment” (see Dependent Claim 19)), when considering the additional elements both individually and as a whole (in combination) with these recited claim limitations, these additional elements do not provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application under step 2a prong 2 and also do not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions under step 2B due to: (1) limiting a particular field of use or technological environment pertaining to monitoring and analyzing data stream signals from a sensor or IoT device and creating a hierarchical template that associates values of the signal with one or more taxonomies of the petroleum service environment based on the source of the signal in a petroleum service environment (see MPEP § 2106.05 (h)) or (2) reciting mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or using a computer as a tool to “apply” the recited judicial exceptions (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements of “sensor(s)” or “IoT(s)” in Dependent Claims 8, 18 and 21 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions under step 2B due being expressly recognized as Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (WURC) in the art.
For example; see US PG Pub (US 2020/0103889 A1) - “Methods and Systems for Detection in an Industrial Internet of Things Data Collection Environment with Intelligent Data Collection and Equipment Package Adjustment for Oil and Gas Equipment”, hereinafter Cella.
Cella at ¶ [1102]: “The sensor type and mechanism for detection may be any type of sensor understood in the art. Without limitation, an accelerometer may be any type and scaling, for example 500 mV per g (1 g=9.8 m/s2), 100 mV, 1 V per g, 5 V per g, 10 V per g, 10 MV per g, as well as any frequency capability. It will be understood for accelerometers, and for all sensor types, that the scaling and range may be competing (e.g., in a fixed-bit or low bit A/D system), and/or selection of high-resolution scaling with a large range may drive up sensor and/or computing costs, which may be acceptable in certain embodiments, and may be prohibitive in other embodiments.”
Cella at ¶ [3121]: “The methods and systems described herein may be deployed in part or in whole through network infrastructures. The network infrastructure may include elements such as computing devices, servers, routers, hubs, firewalls, clients, personal computers, communication devices, routing devices and other active and passive devices, modules and/or components as known in the art.”
The additional elements of “machine learning” in Claims 6, 15 and 21 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions under step 2B due being expressly recognized as Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (WURC) in the art. See at least Cella at ¶ [0291]: “Similar techniques may be used to handle optimization of transport of data in the platform 100 (such as in the network 110) by using generic programming or other machine learning techniques to learn to configure network elements (such as configuring network transport paths, configuring network coding types and architectures, configuring network security elements), and the like.” Also at Cella at ¶ [0291] notes that “alternative available sensor inputs for the data collection system 102 may be arranged in alternative configurations and permutations, such that the system may, using generic programming techniques over a series of data collection events, determine what permutations provide successful outcomes based on various conditions (such as conditions of components