DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 12, 17 and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected (Final Rejection).
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment to claim 20 dated 10/09/2025 obviates the prior 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) antecedent basis rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, at Pages 9 and 10, filed 10/09/2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (hereinafter “Applicant’s § 101 arguments”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s § 101 arguments are that the independent claims 1, 12 and 17 now “recite a practical application, i.e., changing wellsite operations, of the claimed segmenting, thereby reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (i.e., reducing NPT and ILT).
As an initial matter, the independent claims do not even require that the NPT and/or ILT be reduced, much less, recite details of how that reduction is accomplished. The claims appear to be more of claiming a result (change of NPT and/or ILT) rather than any details of how that may occur. Even if reduction of NPT and/or ILT were a practical application (which is not conceded), the claims do not require any such reduction.
Moreover, Applicant’s “practical application” argument is interpreted as arguing that the claims have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application because the claims allegedly provide “an improvement to other technology or technical field”. See MPEP 2106.04(d). However, the background of the application (Paras. [0002] & [0003] of the specification) appear to indicate that “rig activity classification” for “determining replacement of rig equipment” (e.g., what could be considered a wellsite operation) and for “cost-effective wellsite operations” (e.g., no or minimized NPT and/or ILT) was a part of “inaccurate” traditional methods. That is, the specification appears to indicate that “rig activity classification” existed.
Applicant did discuss these features and argument during the Examiner Interview but as explicitly noted in the Interview Summary dated 10/02/2025, the specification discusses improving accuracy and/or validating the accuracy as the improvement to the existing technology (i.e., practical application). Examiner does not believe that it is Applicant’s contention that they invented tracking NPT and/or ILT, but rather that the “traditional methods” were inaccurate. In addition, if NPT and/or ILT calculations/identifications were pre-existing (conventional), what else would they be used for but to make operations more cost-effective (i.e., “changing wellsite operations based on NPT and ILT”)? MANDAVA et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0300845 A1) effectively filed June 2015 and cited in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections below indicate “Invisible Lost Time (ILT)” and “Downtime (DT)” (i.e., non-production time) are “calculated using sensor readings” (Abstract and Paras. [0017] & [0037] of MANDAVA) and “identification, tracking, and application of ILT and IST periods to improve the efficiency of drilling operations” (Para. [0020] of MANDAVA).
In sum, Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive because there is a disconnect between the alleged specification-based specific improvement (e.g., accuracy, Paras. [0002], [0003], [0024] & [0039] of specification) and what the claim requires: identifying NPT and ILT and using it as it was intended. The Federal Circuit has held that “[e]ven a specification full of technical details about a physical invention may nonetheless conclude with claims that claim nothing more than the broad law or abstract idea underlying the claims.” See Yu v. Apple (Fed. Circ. 2020-1760, 2020-1803) at Page 7 quoting ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 769 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Although the invention titled “Auto-Detection And Classification Of Rig Activities From Trend Analysis Of Sensor Data” (emphasis added) may improve the accuracy of the existing technology (a practical application), claim 1, as currently drafted, does not require details of a specific improvement.
For these reasons, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections are maintained and have been modified to address Applicant’s amended claim language.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant appears to present five arguments, which are discussed below in the same order as presented.
First, Applicant argues that COLEY fails to disclose “generating time series data from obtained sensor data” (as recited in claim 1) “since Coley's stored data forming a record over time is not data from obtained sensor data - it is processed rig state data”. However, this argument is unpersuasive for two reasons. As an initial matter, the claim does not require that the “record over time” (time series data) is actual sensor measurements. That is, the claim does not recite “generating sensor time series data from obtained sensor data, wherein the sensor time series data comprises sensor measurements”. Further, COLEY teaches both generating rig states over time based on sensor measurements (which reads on “time series data from obtained sensor data”) and also rig sensor data (measurements, such as depth) over time. See, e.g., Para. [0014] of COLEY (receive measurements produced by rig sensors … measurements may include values for bit depth, hole depth, … the sensor measurements are preprocessed for application to a rig state model … the rig state model generates a rig state value based on the preprocessed sensor measurements) and Para. [0046] of COLEY (given difference in hole depth and bit depth at times T, T−1, T−2, T−3, T−4, T−5, T−6, T+1, T+2, T+3, T+4, T+5, and T+6 calculated in block 406). Para. [0046] of COLEY clearly shows generating time series sensor data (i.e., sensor measurements, such as depth). See also FIGS. 1-6 of COLEY and corresponding description.
Second, Applicant argues “Coley does not disclose analyzing time series data to identify one or more index points where a trend in the time series data changes since this cited portion does not disclose, inter alia, identifying one or more index points where a trend in time series data changes” (emphasis added). Applicant’s specification appears to indicate that at least one example of the index points “may correspond to one or more changes in the gradient transition”. The previous Office Action had cited to Paras. [0061], [0064] & [0066] of COLEY which discuss drill bit depth changing from increasing to decreasing to identify “reaming down” and “backreaming”, respectively, and asserts “the bit depth changing from increasing to decreasing is interpreted as a time point where the trend changes”. Moreover, the depth increasing could be interpreted as a trend change and decreasing could be interpreted as another trend change. Applicant has not addressed Applicant’s interpretation and hence has not successfully persuaded that a change in trend/gradient does not correspond to changing from increasing to decreasing. Moreover, as further evidence, Applicant’s specification, Paras. [0025]-[0026] appears to indicate that “reaming” is a type of tracked macro activity.
Third, Applicant, at Pages 13 and 14, argues “Coley does not disclose segmenting any time series data, let alone segmenting time series data into any set of time segments” and “[t]here is no disclosure in this cited portion of Coley of time series data, segmenting time series data, a first set of time segments that represent macro activities performed during wellsite operations”. However, “connection”, “trip in” and “trip out” are interpreted as macro activities based on Applicant’s original claim 9 and COLEY teaches the same types of macro activities that are segmented: “connection”, “trip in” and “trip out”. As noted in the Office Action, COLEY teaches if the rig state changes to “connection,” the post-processing module 218 may examine the rig states generated for a predetermined time prior to the change to “connection” … if the post-processing module 218 finds another “connection” rig state preceding the change to “connection” and the bit depth between the two “connection” states has changed by less than a predetermined amount (e.g., less than 10 feet), then the post-processing module 218 may change all rig state values between the two “connection” states to “connection”, Para. [0066]; See also in block 608, if the rig state value received from the rig state model 216 is “static,” then the post-processing module 218 determines whether the “trip in” state or the “trip out” state may be more appropriate … for example, if the rig state preceding “static” is either “trip in” or “trip out,” and time spent in the “static” state is less than a predetermined amount (e.g., 20 seconds) then the post-processing module 218 may change the rig state value to the state preceding “static”, Para. [0064]. Moreover, for this “segmenting” limitation, the Office Action asserts: “[a]lthough COLEY appears to show the detection of the same types of macro and micro activities, COLEY arguably does not explicitly disclose all of the features of segmenting the time series data into a first set of time segments representing macro activities performed during the wellsite operations, based on the one or more identified index points and segmenting each time segment of the first set of time segments into a second set of time segments representing micro activities performed during the wellsite operations, based on the identified points of change in the statistical properties of the corresponding time series data. DUNLOP, however, is in the same field of endeavor (automatically detecting the state of a drilling rig, Para. [0002] of DUNLOP) and teaches segmenting the time series data into a first set of time segments representing macro activities performed during the wellsite operations, based on the one or more identified index points and segmenting each time segment of the first set of time segments into a second set of time segments representing micro activities performed during the wellsite operations, based on the identified points of change in the statistical properties of the corresponding time series data (a method for automatically detecting a state of a drilling rig, comprising the step of segmenting a signal, by changepoint detectors, into sections each by General Linear Mode to detect temporal features in the data, such as step-changes, ramps etc., and then to determine the probability of each rig state, wherein the set of possible rig states preferably includes more than 10 possible states, and the method preferably generates a probability of each possible rig state, Paras. [0002], [0009], [0114] and [0115], and FIGS. 1-7 of DUNLOP).” Applicant has not addressed the teachings of DUNLOP with relation to segmenting and changepoints/index points.
Fourth, Applicant, at Pages 14 and 15, argues “Coley does not disclose performing statistical analysis within any time segment of a first set of time segments nor does this cited portion of Coley disclose identifying points where statistical properties of the time series data change”. As an initial matter, a “moving average” (as cited from COLEY) is a statistic showing the average change in a data series over time. The moving average (a statistic) captures time series data and shows the average changing over time, while Applicant argues that COLEY does not disclose “statistical analysis within any time segment” nor “points where statistical properties of the time series data change”. It is not clear what Applicant is trying to argue here? Moreover, as further evidence, immediately subsequent to the calculation of the moving averages (block 404), COLEY, at Paras. [0045] & [0046], teaches calculating a difference in the moving averages (block 406) and “calculates changes in difference of hole depth and bit depth … the change values are referred to lagged or leading values … for example, given difference in hole depth and bit depth at times T, T−1, T−2, T−3, T−4, T−5, T−6, T+1, T+2, T+3, T+4, T+5, and T+6 calculated in block 406, the pre-processing module 212 may calculate lagged values as difference of the difference of hole and bit depth as T−(T−1), T−(T−2), T−(T−3), T−(T−4), T−(T−5), and T−(T−6), and calculate leading values as difference of the difference of hole and bit depth at T−(T+1), T−(T+2), T−(T+3), T−(T+4), T−(T+5), and T−(T+6) for depth data sampled at 0.2 hertz … some embodiments may calculate a different number of lagged or leading values, or calculate the lagged and leading values using different time offsets between the difference values used in the calculations … for example, lagged or leading values may be calculated using difference in hole depth and bit depth at times T, T−6, T−11, T−16, T−21, T−26, T−31, T+6, T+11, T+16, T+21, T+26, and T+31 for depth values sampled at 1 hertz.” For these reasons, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Fifth, Applicant argues, at Paras. 15 & 16, that “Coley does not disclose segmenting each time segment of a first set of time segments into a second set of time segments representing micro activities (performed during wellsite operations) based on identified points of change in statistical properties of corresponding time series data.” This argument is similar to the “Third” argument discussed above and that response to “Third” argument is incorporated by reference. COLEY teaches detecting the same micro activities. Specifically, as noted in the Office Action, COLEY teaches; “if the given rig state is connection, in which a pipe or pipe stand is connected to the drill string 108, then the drilling control system 128 change the operation of the drilling system 100 to reduce the time to perform some operation that performed as part of the connection state”, Para. [0041]; [the connection is interpreted as corresponding as a macro activity [see Applicant’s claim 9], and the “part of the connection state” is interpreted as corresponding to a segmented micro activity]. In addition, as noted in the Office Action, DUNLOP is in the same field of endeavor (automatically detecting the state of a drilling rig, Para. [0002] of DUNLOP) and teaches segmenting the time series data into a first set of time segments representing macro activities performed during the wellsite operations, based on the one or more identified index points and segmenting each time segment of the first set of time segments into a second set of time segments representing micro activities performed during the wellsite operations, based on the identified points of change in the statistical properties of the corresponding time series data (a method for automatically detecting a state of a drilling rig, comprising the step of segmenting a signal, by changepoint detectors, into sections each by General Linear Mode to detect temporal features in the data, such as step-changes, ramps etc., and then to determine the probability of each rig state, wherein the set of possible rig states preferably includes more than 10 possible states, and the method preferably generates a probability of each possible rig state, Paras. [0002], [0009], [0114] and [0115], and FIGS. 1-7 of DUNLOP).
For the above reasons, Applicant’s § 103 arguments are unpersuasive. The amendments are newly addressed by the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “[a] computer-implemented method … comprising: identifying non-productive time (NPT) and invisible lost time (ILT) based on the segmenting; and changing wellsite operations based on the identified NPT and ILT.” Applicant’s remarks (filed 10/09/2025) indicate that support for the amendments can be found in Paras. [0002], [0022], [0024] & [0033] of the as-filed specification (PCT Application No. PCT/US2019/058612).
The most pertinent section relevant to NPT and ILT is Para. [0024] of the specification, which recites “Process 200 in this example may provide a way for a well operator to identify when different types of rig activities are performed and make any necessary decisions in real-time to ensure a safe and/or cost-effective drilling operation. For example, complex and/or expensive rig activities may be identified and monitored to calculate and reduce non-productive time (NPT) and/or invisible lost time (ILT)” (emphasis added).
It is not clear that the control of wellsite operations is part of a computer-implemented method in Para. [0024]. Para. [0024] shows that a well operator makes decisions in real-time to ensure cost-effective drilling, i.e., reduce non-productive time (NPT). But the well operator is interpreted as being a person (human being). Thus, it is not clear that the computer-implemented method claim 1, which appear to be directed at an automated action are supported. Applicant-cited Paras. [0002], [0022] & [0033] fail to cure these deficiencies mentioned above.
Accordingly, Applicant has not particularly pointed out where each of the newly added claim limitations originate from in the original disclosure.
Moreover, even if supported, it is not clear how the changing of wellsite operations based on NPT and ILT occurs: i.e., how the computer/processor makes changes to wellsite operations based on the ILT/NPT… e.g., does the computer/processor close a drill when NPT and ILT are above respective thresholds? MPEP 2161.01(I) recites “It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (reversing and remanding the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity for lack of adequate written description where there were genuine issues of material fact regarding "whether the specification show[ed] possession by the inventor of how accessing disparate databases is achieved").” (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 1, the originally-filed specification does not appear to describe how wellsite operations change based on the identified non-productive time (NPT) and invisible lost time (ILT). The specification does not enable one skilled in the art to make or use the invention.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claimed ““[a] computer-implemented method … comprising: identifying non-productive time (NPT) and invisible lost time (ILT) based on the segmenting; and changing wellsite operations based on the identified NPT and ILT” is non-enabling. As discussed above, the specification does not enable one skilled in the art to make or use the invention. It is not clear how wellsite operations are changed based on the identified non-productive time (NPT) and invisible lost time (ILT) because the Specification’s detailed description of the NPT and ILT does not discuss any functional steps.
Accordingly, claim 1 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
Claims 12 and 17 have substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 1; therefore, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for the same reasons. Claims 2-11, 13-16 and 18-20 each depend, directly or indirectly, from one or more of rejected claims 1, 12 and 17. Therefore, claims 2-11, 13-16 and 18-20 each are also rejected under the same rationale since these claims inherit and fail to cure the respective deficiencies of claims 1, 12 and 17.
For compact prosecution, Examiner has made an interpretation of the subject limitations of Claims 1, 12 and 17 (as best understood), which is represented within the mapping of the claims under the 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 103 rejection(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
(See MPEP 2106).
Claims 1-20 Step 1, Statutory Category?:
Yes: Claims 1-11 are directed to the statutory category of a process. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes: Claims 12-16 are directed to the statutory category of a machine. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes: Claims 17-20 are directed to the statutory category of a manufacture. See MPEP § 2106.03.
The following is an analysis based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Claims 1-20 Steps 2A and 2B:
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A). Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite a mental process and a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 1 Step 2A Prong One: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
1. A computer-implemented method for detecting rig activities during operations at a wellsite, the method comprising:
obtaining, by a computer system, sensor data from rig equipment during wellsite operations;
generating time series data from the obtained sensor data;
analyzing the generated time series data to identify one or more index points where a trend in the time series data changes;
segmenting the time series data into a first set of time segments representing macro activities performed during the wellsite operations, based on the one or more identified index points;
performing statistical analysis on the time series data within each time segment of the first set of time segments to identify points where statistical properties of the time series data change;
segmenting each time segment of the first set of time segments into a second set of time segments representing micro activities performed during the wellsite operations, based on the identified points of change in the statistical properties of the corresponding time series data;
identifying non-productive time (NPT) and invisible lost time (ILT) based on the segmenting; and
changing wellsite operations based on the identified NPT and ILT.
The limitations “generating time series data from the obtained sensor data”, “analyzing the generated time series data to identify one or more index points where a trend in the time series data changes”, “segmenting the time series data into a first set of time segments representing macro activities performed during the wellsite operations, based on the one or more identified index points”, “performing statistical analysis on the time series data within each time segment of the first set of time segments to identify points where statistical properties of the time series data change”, “segmenting each time segment of the first set of time segments into a second set of time segments representing micro activities performed during the wellsite operations, based on the identified points of change in the statistical properties of the corresponding time series data”, “identifying non-productive time (NPT) and invisible lost time (ILT) based on the segmenting” and “changing wellsite operations based on the identified NPT and ILT” are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. The limitations, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could record, with pen and paper, sensor measurements over time; identify where a trend in the sensor measurements changes and segment the recorded measurements based on the identified trend; perform statistical analysis (e.g., averaging) the segmented sensor measurements; further segment the segment based on the averaging/statistical analysis, identify where the time segments are longer than expected/target (e.g., invisible lost time) and allow an operator to make a change based on the ILT and/or downtime/non-production time. In addition, the limitation of “performing statistical analysis on the time series data within each time segment of the first set of time segments to identify points where statistical properties of the time series data change” and “identifying non-productive time (NPT) and invisible lost time (ILT) based on the segmenting” can be performed using mathematical calculations/equations and therefore encompass mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 1 Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “computer-implemented” and “by a computer system” (mere instructions to apply an exception to a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(f); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than high level recitations of generic computer components or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
• “for detecting rig activities during operations at a wellsite” (general field of use or technological environment – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of an oil rig/wellsite (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Moreover, when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
• “obtaining … sensor data from rig equipment during wellsite operations” (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere data inputting – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation can be viewed as nothing more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 1 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there are three types of additional elements. The first additional elements are the generic computer components (“computer-implemented” and “by a computer system”), which are high level recitations of generic computer component(s) or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The second additional element is “for detecting rig activities during operations at a wellsite”, which is at best viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of an oil rig/wellsite. For the claim limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, the claim limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because the claim limitations employ generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment (e.g., oil rig/wellsite), and does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Moreover, as discussed above, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
The third additional element is “obtaining … sensor data from rig equipment during wellsite operations”, which as explained previously is insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data inputting/gathering). Recitation of obtaining sensor data is mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality, and is also well-known. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, this limitation does not amount to significantly more.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and/or data gathering, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 1 is not patent subject matter eligible. Dependent claims 2-11 are further addressed below after addressing each independent claim.
Claim 12 Step 2A Prong One: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
12. A system for detecting rig activities during operations at a wellsite, the system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the processor having instructions stored therein, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform a plurality of functions, including functions to:
obtain sensor data from rig equipment during wellsite operations;
generate time series data from the obtained sensor data;
analyze the generated time series data to identify one or more index points where a trend in the time series data changes;
segment the time series data into a first set of time segments representing macro activities performed during the wellsite operations, based on the one or more identified index points;
perform statistical analysis on the time series data within each time segment of the first set of time segments to identify points where statistical properties of the time series data change;
segment each time segment of the first set of time segments into a second set of time segments representing micro activities performed during the wellsite operations, based on the identified points of change in the statistical properties of the corresponding time series data;
identify non-productive time (NPT) and invisible lost time (ILT) based on the segmenting; and
change wellsite operations based on the identified NPT and ILT.
The limitations “generate time series data from the obtained sensor data; analyze the generated time series data to identify one or more index points where a trend in the time series data changes; segment the time series data into a first set of time segments representing macro activities performed during the wellsite operations, based on the one or more identified index points; perform statistical analysis on the time series data within each time segment of the first set of time segments to identify points where statistical properties of the time series data change; segment each time segment of the first set of time segments into a second set of time segments representing micro activities performed during the wellsite operations, based on the identified points of change in the statistical properties of the corresponding time series data; identify non-productive time (NPT) and invisible lost time (ILT) based on the segmenting; and change wellsite operations based on the identified NPT and ILT” are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. The limitations, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could record, with pen and paper, sensor measurements over time; identify where a trend in the sensor measurements changes and segment the recorded measurements based on the identified trend; perform statistical analysis (e.g., averaging) the segmented sensor measurements; further segment the segment based on the averaging/statistical analysis, identify where the time segments are longer than expected/target (e.g., invisible lost time) and allow an operator to make a change based on the ILT and/or downtime/non-production time. In addition, the limitations of “perform statistical analysis on the time series data within each time segment of the first set of time segments to identify points where statistical properties of the time series data change” and “identify non-productive time (NPT) and invisible lost time (ILT) based on the segmenting” can be performed using mathematical calculations/equations and therefore encompass mathematical concepts. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 12 Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the processor having instructions stored therein, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform a plurality of functions” (mere instructions to apply an exception to a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(f); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than high level recitations of generic computer components or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
• “for detecting rig activities during operations at a wellsite” (general field of use or technological environment – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of an oil rig/wellsite (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Moreover, when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
• “obtain sensor data from rig equipment during wellsite operations” (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere data inputting – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation can be viewed as nothing more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 12 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there are three types of additional elements. The first additional elements are the generic computer components (“at least one processor” and “a memory”), which are high level recitations of generic computer component(s) or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The second additional element is “for detecting rig activities during operations at a wellsite”, which is at best viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of an oil rig/wellsite. For the claim limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, the claim limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because the claim limitations employ generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment (e.g., oil rig/wellsite), and does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Moreover, as discussed above, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
The third additional element is “obtain sensor data from rig equipment during wellsite operations”, which as explained previously is insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data inputting/gathering). Recitation of obtaining sensor data is mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality, and is also well-known. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, this limitation does not amount to significantly more.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and/or data gathering, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 12 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 12 is not patent subject matter eligible. Dependent claims 13-16 are further addressed below after addressing each independent claim.
Claim 17 Step 2A Prong One: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
17. A computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a computer cause the computer to perform a plurality of functions, including functions to:
obtain, by a computer system, sensor data from rig equipment during wellsite operations;
generate time series data from the obtained sensor data;
analyze the generated time series data to identify one or more index points where a trend in the time series data changes;
segment the time series data into a first set of time segments representing macro activities performed during the wellsite operations, based on the one or more identified index points;
perform statistical analysis on the time series data within each time segment of the first set of time segments to identify points where statistical properties of the time series data change;
segment each time segment of the first set of time segments into a second set of time segments representing micro activities performed during the wellsite operations, based on the identified points of change in the statistical properties of the corresponding time series data;
identify non-productive time (NPT) and invisible lost time (ILT) based on the segmenting; and
change wellsite operations based on the identified NPT and ILT.
The limitations “generate time series data from the obtained sensor data; analyze the generated time series data to identify one or more index points where a trend in the time series data changes; segment the time series data into a first set of time segments representing macro activities performed during the wellsite operations, based on the one or more identified index points; perform statistical analysis on the time series data within each time segment of the first set of time segments to identify points where statistical properties of the time series data change; and segment each time segment of the first set of time segments into a second set of time segments representing micro activities performed during the wellsite operations, based on the identified points of change in the statistical properties of the corresponding time series data; identify non-productive time (NPT) and invisible lost time (ILT) based on the segmenting; and change wellsite operations based on the identified NPT and ILT” are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. The limitations, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could record, with pen and paper, sensor measurements over time; identify where a trend in the sensor measurements changes and segment the recorded measurements based on the identified trend; perform statistical analysis (e.g., averaging) the segmented sensor measurements; further segment the segment based on the averaging/statistical analysis, identify where the time segments are longer than expected/target (e.g., invisible lost time) and allow an operator to make a change based on the ILT and/or downtime/non-production time. In addition, the limitations of “perform statistical analysis on the time series data within each time segment of the first set of time segments to identify points where statistical properties of the time series data change” and “identify non-productive time (NPT) and invisible lost time (ILT) based on the segmenting” can be performed using mathematical calculations/equations and therefore encompass mathematical concepts. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 17 Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “instructions stored therein, which when executed by a computer cause the computer to perform a plurality of functions” and “by a computer system” (mere instructions to apply an exception to a computer – see MPEP § 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP § 2106.05(f); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than high level recitations of generic computer components or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
• “obtain … sensor data from rig equipment during wellsite operations” (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere data inputting – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation can be viewed as nothing more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 17 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there are two types of additional elements. The first additional elements are the generic computer components, which are high level recitations of generic computer component(s) or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The second additional element is “obtain … sensor data from rig equipment during wellsite operations”, which as explained previously is insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data inputting/gathering). Recitation of obtaining sensor data is mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality, and is also well-known. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, this limitation does not amount to significantly more.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and/or data gathering, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 17 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 17 is not patent subject matter eligible. Dependent claims 18-20 are further addressed below.
Dependent Claims 2-11, 13-16 and 18-20
Regarding claims 2-5, 9-11 and 13-16, claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein gen