DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment filed December 9, 2025. Claims 5 and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-4, 9, 19, and 21-24 are cancelled. Claims 5-8, 10-18, and 20 are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the § 101 rejection, Applicant submits that “a human cannot receive sensor data from pieces of equipment at geographically distributed facilities.” (Page 9 of Applicant’s response) The Examiner points out that the claims do not present any specific technical details as to HOW data is measured by and transmitted from sensors. Currently, the claims receive sensor data records. A human user can receive data from sensor data records, including data related to multiple pieces of equipment across geographically distributed facilities, such as via a paper report. As claimed, the additional elements only generally facilitate data gathering, displaying, and the other operations at a high level. The additional elements are mere tools to facilitate these operations.
Contrary to Applicant’s assertions (regarding the Finjan and Enfish decisions) presented on pages 9-10 of Applicant’s response, Applicant’s claim do not present any specific technical details regarding the structure of a multi-field data record. A piece of paper listing various pieces of information in hand-drawn table format is an example of a multi-field record. The claims do not present the operations of the additional elements at a level of technical detail that would not find a human-performed analog.
On page 10 of the response, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
108
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claims do not present details of how to standardize sensor data, for example. The generation of the sensor data records seems to just aggregate relevant data in a record and this is performed with the additional elements only generally applied a high level. There are no specific technical operations recited beyond generic processing operations. A human user could manually monitor equipment and gather related data, analyze the data, and visually present output signaling an alert and a work order (e.g., using pen and paper). The sensors and communication interface are only generally applied at a high level to gather information that could otherwise be gathered by a human user and the user interface is only generally applied at a high level to output the type of information that a human user could illustrate graphically by hand. Additionally, obtaining data using one or more sensors is an example of generic data gathering. The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
On pages 11-12 of the response, Applicant makes a general assertion that the claims are not directed to organizing human activity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As pointed out in the rejection, the evaluated process is related to generating an alert signal associated with a piece of the equipment at the one or more facilities based on a comparison of the sensor data records to a threshold value, a work order for servicing the piece of equipment generated based on the comparison with the threshold value, which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of organizing humans and instructing them (i.e., organizing human activity) since (as seen in Spec: ¶ 26) “the work order may be transmitted to the business unit having the equipment corresponding to the sensor data or the equipment data.”
On pages 12-13 of the response, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
208
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
128
488
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This argument is reiterated on pages 13-14 of Applicant’s response. The Examiner notes that the claims do not address how data is structured from a technical perspective. Different pieces of information are gathered. The claims do not present any specific formatting or reformatting of the data for data standardization, for example. “Sensor data records ” are just collections of data. Applicant’s claims do not present a technological solution to a technological problem. At best, the additional elements simply integrate the known benefits of generic computing elements and are not themselves technologically improved. The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Additionally, the claims do not present technical details that are specifically useful in managing large amounts of data more efficiently than another generic processing system. Again, Applicant’s claims do not present a technological solution to a technological problem. Additionally, obtaining data using one or more sensors is an example of generic data gathering. At best, the additional elements simply integrate the known benefits of generic computing elements and are not themselves technologically improved. The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and generic processing elements and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). For example, Applicant does not present any technological improvement over how large amounts of data are usually handled, much less details of a new type of file that enables any technological improvements.
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant submits that the applied references do not address the newly amended-in limitations (pages 15-17 of Applicant’s response). The Nielsen reference has been introduced into the rejections in order to help address the claim amendments.
Priority
There are two main chains of priority for the instant application. Regarding Chain I, it is noted that the instant application is a CIP of parent application number 17/108,848 (which is a Continuation of parent application number 15/274,655, which claims priority to Provisional application number 62/222,561, filed on September 23, 2015). Chain II is the chain in which the instant application is a CIP of parent application number 15/003,414 (which claims priority to Provisional application number 62/106,020, filed on January 21, 2015). None of the priority applications provide full support for the subject matter recited in at least independent claims 5 and 15 (as explained in the chart below); therefore, claims 5-8, 10-18, and 20 are granted an effective filing date of February 9, 2022 (i.e., the filing date of the instant application) for the purposes of examination.
(Chain I or II)
Priority Application
Date of Filing of Priority Application
Comparison to Independent Claims 5, 15 of Instant Application
Priority Granted (for prior art purposes)
(I) 17108848
12/01/2020
Mentions sensors, make and model, various businesses locations distributed around the globe, noting time at which sensed values were received, host processing system.
No availability percentage, forced outage, planned outage (only mentions unexpected shutdowns in the background of the invention in paragraph 3 of the Spec).
No
(I) 15274655
09/23/2016
Mentions sensors, make and model, various businesses locations distributed around the globe, noting time at which sensed values were received, host processing system.
No availability percentage, forced outage, planned outage (only mentions unexpected shutdowns in the background of the invention in paragraph 3 of the Spec).
No
(II) 15003414
01/21/2016
Mentions availability percentage, forced outage, planned outage.
No sensors, make or model, geographical/global.
No
(I) 62222561
09/23/2015
Mentions sensors, make and model, various businesses locations distributed around the globe, noting time at which sensed values were received, host processing system.
No availability percentage, forced outage, planned outage (only mentions unexpected shutdowns in the background of the invention in paragraph 2 of the Spec).
No
(II) 62106020
01/21/2015
Mentions availability percentage, forced outage, planned outage.
No sensors, make or model, geographical/global.
No
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 5-8, 10-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 5-8, 10-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to “determining availability and reliability of facility equipment” (Spec: ¶ 30) without significantly more.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes – The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Article of Manufacture (claims 5-8, 10-14), Process (claims 15-18, 20)
Independent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claims 5, 15] a process/method comprising:
receiving the sensor data, the sensor data including an operational status of the pieces of equipment located at one or more geographically distributed facilities;
generating sensor data records including the sensor data, wherein the sensor data records comprise a sensor data value, an equipment general description identifying a functionality category of the pieces of equipment, an equipment specific description including a make and model of the pieces of equipment, and a timestamp corresponding to the sensor data, the sensor records being transmitted;
automatically categorizing the operational status of the pieces of equipment at the one or more facilities into a plurality of categories using the sensor data records for the pieces of equipment at the one or more geographically distributed facilities, each of the plurality of categories being assigned a distinct indicator;
generating a visual output specifying the operational status of the pieces of equipment at the one or more facilities using/based on the sensor data records for the pieces of equipment (at the one or more geographically distributed facilities), the visual output including a visual indicator generated based on the distinct indication;
classifying an interruption of function of the pieces of equipment (records for the pieces of equipment) at the one or more geographically distributed facilities as one of a planned outage classification, a forced outage classification, and standby mode classification based on the sensor data records;
determining a reliability of the pieces of equipment using the sensor data records by generating a reliability percentage of the pieces of equipment, the reliability percentage generated based on a total amount of time the pieces of equipment are classified as the forced outage classification;
determining an availability of the pieces of equipment using the sensor data records by generating an availability percentage of the pieces of equipment, the availability percentage generated based on a total amount of time classified as the forced outage classification and the planned outage classification using the sensor data records for the pieces of equipment;
monitoring the pieces of equipment at the one or more geographically distributed facilities using the reliability and the availability of the pieces of equipment determined using the sensor data records; and
generating an alert signal associated with a piece of the equipment of the pieces of equipment at the one or more facilities based on a comparison of the sensor data records to a threshold value;
and generating a work order for servicing the piece of equipment based on the comparison with the threshold value.
It is noted that the term “automatically” may simply mean “in response to.” For example, a human user can perform an action automatically in response to another action.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(C)(III), “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, ‘methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’’ 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. For example, a human user can gather data, analyze it, and present data and other results for display, including with various visual indicators (e.g., with the use of pen and paper). A human user can also control equipment based on monitoring and sensor data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to generating an alert signal associated with a piece of the equipment at the one or more facilities based on a comparison of the sensor data records to a threshold value, a work order for servicing the piece of equipment generated based on the comparison with the threshold value, which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of organizing humans and instructing them (i.e., organizing human activity) since (as seen in Spec: ¶ 26) “the work order may be transmitted to the business unit having the equipment corresponding to the sensor data or the equipment data”; therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Determining a reliability of equipment and determining an availability of equipment incorporate evaluations of percentage values, thereby exemplifying mathematical concepts.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 5 includes one or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions for performing a computer process on a computing system.
Claim 5 also receives, at a host processing system and via a communication interface from one or more processing systems corresponding to one or more geographically distributed facilities comprising pieces of equipment, sensor data obtained from one or more sensors coupled to the pieces of equipment.
Claim 5 also recites generating sensor data records using one or more processing systems and transmitting the sensor data records from the one or more processing systems corresponding to the one or more geographically distributed facilities to the host processing system via an enterprise network.
Claim 5 generates a user interface including a visual output using sensor data records from the one or more processing systems.
Claim 5 recites using the sensor data records from the one or more processing systems.
Claim 15 receives, at a host processing system and via a communication interface from one or more processing systems corresponding to one or more geographically distributed facilities comprising pieces of equipment, sensor data obtained from one or more sensors coupled to the pieces of equipment.
Claim 15 also recites generating sensor data records using one or more processing systems and transmitting the sensor data records from the one or more processing systems corresponding to the one or more geographically distributed facilities to the host processing system via an enterprise network.
Claim 15 also generates a user interface including a visual output.
Claim 15 recites using the sensor data records from the one or more processing systems.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶ 59). Using a sensor to gather data is a general application of a processing element to gather equipment sensor data. The various systems and network elements are also simply utilized as generic processing elements to implement the abstract ideas at a high level of generality. Gathering data from equipment and monitoring the status of each of a pump, a generator, a compressor, and a turbine are examples of a general link to a field of use. Obtaining data using one or more sensors is an example of generic data gathering.
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions (e.g., as recited in the article of manufacture claims) facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claims 6, 16] wherein a facility of the one or more facilities is associated with production of hydrocarbons from a well.
[Claims 7, 17] wherein the operational status is received from each of a pump, a generator, a compressor, and a turbine.
[Claims 8, 18] wherein the visual output specifying the operational status is output for presentation.
[Claims 10, 20] wherein the plurality of categories of the operational status of the equipment comprises a first category, a second category and a third category, wherein the first category comprises a functioning status, the second category comprises a currently functioning and interrupted functioning status within a predetermined period of time, and the third category comprises a non-functioning status.
[Claim 11] wherein the interruption of function of the equipment is classified by prompting an operator with a request, the request including a detailed catalogue including any periods of downtime over a predetermined period of time for the equipment and a classification for downtime periods.
[Claim 12] wherein the interruption of function of the equipment is further classified based on input received in response to the request.
[Claim 13] wherein the reliability percentage corresponds to a probability that the equipment will not be in the forced outage classification.
[Claim 14] wherein the availability percentage corresponds to a probability that the equipment will be usable.
The dependent claims incorporate the abstract ideas identified in regard to the independent claims above.
It is noted that the term “automatically” may simply mean “in response to.” For example, a human user can perform an action automatically in response to another action.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(C)(III), “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, ‘methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’’ 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. For example, a human user can gather data, analyze it, and present data and other results for display, including with various visual indicators (e.g., with the use of pen and paper). A human user can also control equipment based on monitoring and sensor data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to generating an alert signal associated with a piece of the equipment at the one or more facilities based on a comparison of the sensor data records to a threshold value, a work order for servicing the piece of equipment generated based on the comparison with the threshold value, which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of organizing humans and instructing them (i.e., organizing human activity) since (as seen in Spec: ¶ 26) “the work order may be transmitted to the business unit having the equipment corresponding to the sensor data or the equipment data”; therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Determining a reliability of equipment and determining an availability of equipment incorporate evaluations of percentage values, thereby exemplifying mathematical concepts.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
The dependent claims incorporate the additional elements of the independent claim from which each depends.
Claim 5 includes one or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions for performing a computer process on a computing system.
Claim 5 also receives, at a host processing system and via a communication interface from one or more processing systems corresponding to one or more geographically distributed facilities comprising pieces of equipment, sensor data obtained from one or more sensors coupled to the pieces of equipment.
Claim 5 also recites generating sensor data records using one or more processing systems and transmitting the sensor data records from the one or more processing systems corresponding to the one or more geographically distributed facilities to the host processing system via an enterprise network.
Claim 5 generates a user interface including a visual output using sensor data records from the one or more processing systems.
Claim 5 recites using the sensor data records from the one or more processing systems.
Claim 15 receives, at a host processing system and via a communication interface from one or more processing systems corresponding to one or more geographically distributed facilities comprising pieces of equipment, sensor data obtained from one or more sensors coupled to the pieces of equipment.
Claim 15 also recites generating sensor data records using one or more processing systems and transmitting the sensor data records from the one or more processing systems corresponding to the one or more geographically distributed facilities to the host processing system via an enterprise network.
Claim 15 also generates a user interface including a visual output.
Claim 15 recites using the sensor data records from the one or more processing systems.
Claims 7 and 17 recite wherein operational status received from each of a pump, a generator, a compressor, and a turbine in communication with a monitoring system.
Claims 8 and 18 recite wherein the visual output specifying the operational status is output for presentation using a screen.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶ 59). Using a sensor to gather data is a general application of a processing element to gather equipment sensor data. The various systems and network elements are also simply utilized as generic processing elements to implement the abstract ideas at a high level of generality. Gathering data from equipment and monitoring the status of each of a pump, a generator, a compressor, and a turbine are examples of a general link to a field of use. Obtaining data using one or more sensors is an example of generic data gathering.
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions (e.g., as recited in the article of manufacture claims) facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5, 7-8, 10-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady et al. (US 2009/0143889) in view of Givens et al. (US 2010/0214094) in view of Nielsen et al. (US 2011/0191058).
[Claim 5] Brady discloses one or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions for performing a computer process on a computing system (¶¶ 15-19, 46), the computer process comprising:
automatically categorizing the operational status of the pieces of equipment at the one or more facilities into a plurality of categories using data records for the pieces of equipment at the one or more geographically distributed facilities, each of the plurality of categories being assigned a distinct indication (¶¶ 33-34 – Operational status categories may include READY, RUNNING, DOWNTIME, MISSING DATA, PLANNED DOWNTIME, UNPLANNED DOWNTIME-DRIVER, UNPLANNED DOWNTIME-DRIVEN, EXTERNAL CAUSE, UNCHARACTERIZED, etc.; ¶¶ 32, 43-44 – Operating statuses may be evaluated for lengths of time and given time periods; It is noted that the term “automatically” may simply mean “in response to.” For example, a human user can perform an action automatically in response to another action.; ¶¶ 26, 28, 47, 52 -- Multiple pieces of equipment may be tracked at multiple, geographically dispersed facilities, including through the use of a web-based system.);
classifying an interruption of function of the pieces of equipment at the one or more geographically distributed facilities as one of a planned outage classification, a forced outage classification, and standby mode classification based on the data records (fig. 3; ¶¶ 29-34 – An authorized user may be provided with an interface to characterize or recharacterize any Running or Ready data. Brady’s PLANNED DOWNTIME status is an example corresponding to the claimed planned outage. Brady’s UNPLANNED DOWNTIME status is an example corresponding to the claimed forced outage. Brady’s READY status is an example corresponding to the claimed standby mode), wherein the request includes a detailed catalogue including any periods of downtime over a predetermined period of time for the equipment and a classification for recent downtime periods (Figs. 2-5, ¶¶ 46, 54 – A report of downtime for a particular time period, including reliability and status, may be requested and displayed; It is further noted that Brady presents a catalogue of information, which Applicant’s Specification simply defines as a collection of information; ¶¶ 33-34 – Operational status categories may include READY, RUNNING, DOWNTIME, MISSING DATA, PLANNED DOWNTIME, UNPLANNED DOWNTIME-DRIVER, UNPLANNED DOWNTIME-DRIVEN, EXTERNAL CAUSE, UNCHARACTERIZED, etc.; ¶¶ 32, 43-44 – Operating statuses may be evaluated for lengths of time and given time periods.; ¶¶ 26, 28, 47, 52 -- Multiple pieces of equipment may be tracked at multiple, geographically dispersed facilities, including through the use of a web-based system.);
determining a reliability of the pieces of equipment by generating a reliability percentage of the equipment of the pieces of equipment, the reliability percentage generated based on a total amount of time the pieces of equipment are classified as the forced outage classification (¶ 43; ¶¶ 26, 28, 47, 52 -- Multiple pieces of equipment may be tracked at multiple, geographically dispersed facilities, including through the use of a web-based system.);
determining an availability of the pieces of equipment using the data records by generating an availability percentage of the pieces of equipment, the availability percentage generated based on the total amount of time classified as the forced outage classification and the planned outage classification using the data records for the pieces of equipment (¶ 43; ¶¶ 26, 28, 47, 52 -- Multiple pieces of equipment may be tracked at multiple, geographically dispersed facilities, including through the use of a web-based system.);
monitoring the pieces of equipment at the one or more geographically distributed facilities using the reliability and the availability of the pieces of equipment determined using the data records (¶¶ 22, 43, 47, 51; ¶¶ 26, 28, 47, 52 -- Multiple pieces of equipment may be tracked at multiple, geographically dispersed facilities, including through the use of a web-based system.).
Brady receives an operational status of the equipment of the facility (¶¶ 17-18, 28-30 – Equipment operating status data may be collected automatically; ¶ 44 – turbine, compressor; ¶ 49 – generator, pump) and generates a visual output specifying the operational status of the equipment (figs. 2, 3, 5; ¶¶ 30-34 – Operational status categories may include READY, RUNNING, DOWNTIME, MISSING DATA, PLANNED DOWNTIME, UNPLANNED DOWNTIME-DRIVER, UNPLANNED DOWNTIME-DRIVEN, EXTERNAL CAUSE, UNCHARACTERIZED, etc.; ¶¶ 32, 43-44 – Operating statuses may be evaluated for lengths of time and given time periods); however, Brady does not explicitly disclose:
receiving, at a host processing system and via a communication interface from one or more processing systems corresponding to one or more geographically distributed facilities comprising pieces of equipment, sensor data obtained from one or more sensors coupled to the pieces of equipment, the sensor data including an operational status of the pieces of equipment;
generating sensor data records including the sensor data using one or more processing systems, wherein the sensor data records comprise a sensor data value, an equipment general description identifying a functional category of the pieces of equipment, an equipment specific description including a make and model of the pieces of equipment, and a timestamp corresponding to the sensor data, the sensor data records being transmitted from the one or more processing systems corresponding to the one or more geographically distributed facilities to the host processing system via an enterprise network;
that the step of automatically categorizing the operational status of the pieces of equipment is performed using the sensor data records for the pieces of equipment at the one or more geographically distributed facilities;
generating a user interface including a visual output specifying the operational status of the pieces of equipment at the one or more facilities using the sensor data records for the pieces of equipment from the one or more processing systems, the visual output including a visual indicator generated based on the distinct indication;
that the classifying an interruption is based on the sensor data records;
that the determining a reliability is performed using the sensor data records;
that the determining an availability is performed using the sensor data records for the pieces of equipment from the one or more processing systems;
monitoring the pieces of equipment at the one or more geographically distributed facilities using the reliability and the availability of the pieces of equipment determined using the sensor data records from the one or more processing systems;
generating an alert signal associated with a piece of the equipment of the pieces of equipment at the one or more facilities based on a comparison of the sensor data records to a threshold value and
generating a work order for servicing the piece of equipment based on the comparison with the threshold value.
Regarding the multiple pieces of equipment being located at geographically distributed facilities and the use of a host processing system, Brady explains that multiple pieces of equipment may be tracked at multiple, geographically dispersed facilities, including through the use of a web-based system (Brady: ¶¶ 26, 28, 47, 52).
Regarding receiving, via a communication interface from one or more processing systems corresponding to one or more facilities where equipment is located, sensor data obtained from one or more sensors coupled to the equipment, the sensor data including an operational status of the equipment, Givens uses a wireless sensor system with sensors placed on equipment (Givens: abstract, ¶¶ 25, 61) and detects an operational status of equipment (Givens: ¶ 41 – “In the situation where the equipment becomes dangerously charged, a capacitive sensor (not shown) could be used to detect the voltage and wirelessly transmit data that could alert a base station and/or sound an external alarm.”).
As to generating sensor data records using one or more processing systems, the sensor data records being transmitted to a host processing system via an enterprise network, Givens discloses that an operational status may be received wirelessly from the equipment sensors and the operational status may be correlated with the appropriate equipment and a particular location/job site on an interface for visualization (Givens: abstract, ¶ 41; figs. 14A-14C, ¶ 92). The correlation of the equipment name to a particular sensor exemplifies a “sensor data record(s).”
Givens addresses generating a user interface including a visual output specifying the operational status of the equipment at the one or more facilities using the sensor data records from the one or more processing systems, the visual output including a visual indicator generated based on the distinct indication since Givens discloses that an operational status may be received wirelessly from the equipment sensors and the operational status may be correlated with the appropriate equipment and a particular location/job site on an interface for visualization (Givens: abstract, ¶ 41; figs. 14A-14C, ¶ 92). The correlation of the equipment name to a particular sensor exemplifies a “sensor data record(s).”
Regarding classifying an interruption based on the sensor data records, as discussed above, Givens identifies sensor-detected events that could signal a problem affecting equipment operations and, thereby, trigger appropriate alarms (Givens: ¶¶ 100, 106).
Regarding determining a reliability using the sensor data and determining an availability using the sensor data and using the sensor data records from the one or more processing systems, (as seen above) Brady addresses the determination of reliability and of availability using equipment data. Givens shows that equipment status may be gleaned from sensor data records (as discussed above), thereby suggesting that sensor data and sensor data records are useful in evaluating equipment reliability and availability. More specifically, Givens recognizes that its disclosed invention is useful in providing a solution to “a need for an inexpensive, reliable and versatile sensor system that can detect and minimize hazards that are created by using equipment in proximity to power lines” (Givens: ¶ 4).
Regarding the steps of monitoring the one or more facilities using the reliability and the availability of the equipment determined using the sensor data records from the one or more processing systems and generating an alert signal associated with a piece of the equipment at the one or more facilities based on a comparison of the sensor data records to a threshold value, a work order for servicing the piece of equipment generated based on the comparison with the threshold value, (as seen above) Brady addresses the determination of reliability and of availability using equipment data and Brady explains that multiple pieces of equipment may be tracked at multiple, geographically dispersed facilities, including through the use of a web-based system (Brady: ¶¶ 26, 28, 47, 52).
Givens shows that equipment status may be gleaned from sensor data records (as discussed above), thereby suggesting that sensor data records are useful in evaluating equipment reliability and availability. More specifically, Givens recognizes that its disclosed invention is useful in providing a solution to “a need for an inexpensive, reliable and versatile sensor system that can detect and minimize hazards that are created by using equipment in proximity to power lines” (Givens: ¶ 4). Furthermore, Givens uses a wireless sensor system with sensors placed on equipment (Givens: abstract, ¶¶ 25, 61) and detects an operational status of equipment (Givens: ¶ 41 – “In the situation where the equipment becomes dangerously charged, a capacitive sensor (not shown) could be used to detect the voltage and wirelessly transmit data that could alert a base station and/or sound an external alarm.”). Givens discloses that an operational status may be received wirelessly from the equipment sensors and the operational status may be correlated with the appropriate equipment and a particular location/job site on an interface for visualization (Givens: abstract, ¶ 41; figs. 14A-14C, ¶ 92). In other words, Givens monitors the equipment at the one or more facilities. The alerts may incorporate notifications to assigned machine operators and observers to potentially hazardous conditions (Givens: ¶ 106). Givens further states, “When the operator hears or sees an alarm the operator becomes aware of a potentially dangerous situation and can work to solve the problem.” (Givens: ¶ 28) The expectation that an operator “can work to solve the problem”, at the very least, suggests that targeting an alarm to the appropriate operator intends to assign a task (i.e., which is akin to a “work order”) to the operator to find a solution to the problem at hand. Alarms may be triggered when threshold limits are exceeded (Givens: ¶¶ 92, 93, 96, 97), which means that a problem with specific equipment for a particular operator to address may be identified based on a comparison of the sensor data records to a threshold value or limit.
The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Brady to perform the steps of:
receiving, at a host processing system and via a communication interface from one or more processing systems corresponding to one or more geographically distributed facilities comprising pieces of equipment, sensor data obtained from one or more sensors coupled to the pieces of equipment, the sensor data including an operational status of the pieces of equipment;
generating sensor data records including the sensor data using one or more processing systems, the sensor data records being transmitted from the one or more processing systems corresponding to the one or more geographically distributed facilities to the host processing system via an enterprise network;
wherein the step of automatically categorizing the operational status of the pieces of equipment is performed using the sensor data records for the pieces of equipment at the one or more geographically distributed facilities;
generating a user interface including a visual output specifying the operational status of the pieces of equipment at the one or more facilities using the sensor data records for the pieces of equipment from the one or more processing systems, the visual output including a visual indicator generated based on the distinct indication;
wherein the classifying an interruption is based on the sensor data records;
wherein the determining a reliability is performed using the sensor data records;
wherein the determining an availability is performed using the sensor data records for the pieces of equipment from the one or more processing systems;
monitoring the pieces of equipment at the one or more geographically distributed facilities using the reliability and the availability of the pieces of equipment determined using the sensor data records from the one or more processing systems;
generating an alert signal associated with a piece of the equipment of the pieces of equipment at the one or more facilities based on a comparison of the sensor data records to a threshold value and
generating a work order for servicing the piece of equipment based on the comparison with the threshold value
in order to provide a solution to “a need for an inexpensive, reliable and versatile sensor system that can detect and minimize hazards that are created by using equipment in proximity to power lines” (as suggested in Givens: ¶ 4). Additionally, associating a sensor with a particular piece of equipment (e.g., as a “sensor data record(s)”) would have further allowed Brady to reap “[a]n additional advantage of wireless sensors [in] that there are no connections to be disengaged and subsequently reengaged when components are interchanged.” (Givens: ¶ 51)
Regarding wherein the sensor data records comprise a sensor data value, an equipment general description identifying a functional category of the pieces of equipment, an equipment specific description including a make and model of the pieces of equipment, and a timestamp corresponding to the sensor data, Nielsen stores timestamped event entries in an electronic record, including events related to status of operations of monitored marking devices and locate equipment found in various locations (Nielsen: ¶¶ 225, 296-302). A make and model of the locate receiver and transmitter may also be identified (Nielsen: ¶¶ 303-304). Operational conditions and equipment status may also be gathered via sensors (Nielsen: ¶¶ 301-308). Information may be sent back to a central location to generate electronic records so that a supervisor may monitor work of the technician at a location of interest (Nielsen: ¶ 392). The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the Brady-Givens combination wherein the sensor data records comprise a sensor data value, an equipment general description identifying a functional category of the pieces of equipment, an equipment specific description including a make and model of the pieces of equipment, and a timestamp corresponding to the sensor data in order to assist in more accurately and completely archiving equipment events for more efficient and convenient supervision and maintenance of equipment located throughout various areas and facilities.
[Claim 7] Brady discloses wherein the operational status is received from each of a pump, a generator, a compressor, and a turbine in communication with a monitoring system (¶¶ 17-18, 28-29 – Equipment operating status data may be collected automatically; ¶ 44 – turbine, compressor; ¶ 49 – generator, pump).
[Claim 8] Brady discloses wherein the visual output specifying the operational status is output for presentation using a screen (figs. 2-5; ¶¶ 22, 43, 47, 51).
[Claim 10] Brady discloses wherein the plurality of categories of the operational status of the equipment comprises a first category, a second category and a third category, wherein the first category comprises a functioning status, the second category comprises a currently functioning and interrupted functioning status within a predetermined period of time, and the third category comprises a non-functioning status (¶¶ 33-34 – Operational status categories may include READY, RUNNING, DOWNTIME, MISSING DATA, PLANNED DOWNTIME, UNPLANNED DOWNTIME-DRIVER, UNPLANNED DOWNTIME-DRIVEN, EXTERNAL CAUSE, UNCHARACTERIZED, etc.; ¶¶ 32, 43-44 – Operating statuses may be evaluated for lengths of time and given time periods).
[Claim 11] Brady discloses wherein the interruption of function of the equipment is classified by prompting an operator with a request, the request including a detailed catalogue including any periods of downtime over a predetermined period of time for the equipment and a classification for downtime periods (¶¶ 33-34 – Operational status categories may include READY, RUNNING, DOWNTIME, MISSING DATA, PLANNED DOWNTIME, UNPLANNED DOWNTIME-DRIVER, UNPLANNED DOWNTIME-DRIVEN, EXTERNAL CAUSE, UNCHARACTERIZED, etc.; ¶¶ 32, 43-44 – Operating statuses may be evaluated for lengths of time and given time periods; As seen in fig. 3 and ¶¶ 29-34, a user may be prompted to characterize or recharacterize operating status data).
[Claim 12] Brady discloses wherein the interruption of function of the equipment is further classified based on input received in response to the request (¶¶ 29-32 – A fleet manager might have to characterize operating status data manually, such as for data initially categorized as “uncharacterized.”).
[Claim 13] Brady discloses wherein the reliability percentage corresponds to a probability that the equipment will not be in the forced outage classification (figs. 4-5; ¶¶ 22, 43, 47, 51).
[Claim 14] Brady discloses wherein the availability percentage corresponds to a probability that the equipment will be usable (figs. 4-5; ¶¶ 22, 43, 47, 51).
[Claims 15, 17-18, 20] Claims 15, 17-18, and 20 recite limitations already addressed by the rejections of claims 5, 7-8, and 10 above; therefore, the same rejections apply. Furthermore, it is noted that the phrase “wherein controlling the equipment improves performance of the equipment” is a purported improvement that does not further impart any limiting elements or operations of the claims. This phrase does not per se serve to distinguish the claims over the prior art. The controlling operation itself has been addressed by the prior art, as discussed above.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady et al. (US 2009/0143889) in view of Givens et al. (US 2010/0214094) in view of Nielsen et al. (US 2011/0191058), as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, in view of Sheldon (US 2004/0149436).
[Claims 6, 16] Brady monitors equipment of a facility associated with production of hydrocarbons (such as a petroleum product mining system), the equipment including a turbine, pump, generator, and a compressor (Brady: ¶¶ 21-22, 29-30, 44, 49). Givens explains that “when working on an oil and gas line, side booms lift and hold sections of large diameter pipe in place while well joints are formed between adjoining sections of pipe.” (Givens: ¶ 61) Brady and Givens do not fully and explicitly disclose wherein a facility of the one or more facilities is associated with production of hydrocarbons from a well.
In terms of a specific well environment actively performing hydrocarbon extraction, he use of sensors and remote communications to monitor the operations of each device in an oil extraction system in a well environment (Sheldon: abstract; ¶¶ 25, 54-55, 57). Sensors and probes can be used to monitor operations (Sheldon: ¶ 39), including operations related to a pump, motor (i.e., generator), and compressor at multiple oil wells, i.e., facilities (Sheldon: ¶¶ 20, 25-29, 36-45, 48-54, 62). Brady similarly monitors oil extraction (i.e., petroleum product mining) and further discloses that the requisite equipment for such operations includes a turbine and a compressor (Brady: ¶¶ 21-22, 29-30). Brady makes a general reference to monitoring equipment (as discussed above) while Sheldon more explicitly discloses that monitoring involves communications between each device (i.e., piece of equipment) in the system and an operator via the operator’s computer or cell phone (Sheldon: ¶¶ 54-59). In other words, Sheldon discloses a specific, automated manner in which Brady could feasibly monitor various pieces of equipment in a hydrocarbon well environment. As discussed above, Brady also evaluates a reliability and availability of system equipment. The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Brady wherein a facility of the one or more facilities is associated with production of hydrocarbons from a well in order to allow for a quicker, more cost-effective, and more efficient response to any detected problems in the system equipment, as suggested in Sheldon (Sheldon: ¶¶ 26-27, 36, 57-59, 63). Furthermore, adapting Brady’s oil extraction monitoring system and method specifically to a well environment would have allowed Brady’s invention to be more useful, and thereby more marketable, in various equipment and facility environments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSANNA M DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUSANNA M. DIAZ/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625A