DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 12, 2026 has been entered. Claims 5-6, 10-12, 15-16, and 20 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 June 12, 2026 have been considered but they are not fully persuasive.
On page 8 of the response, Applicant asserts that “the pending claims are entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing dates claimed in this application.” However, Applicant does not point to specific support in the parent applications to show that all claim limitations are supported by all of the earlier filed applications.
Regarding the § 101 rejection, Applicant submits that “a human cannot receive sensor data from pieces of equipment at geographically distributed facilities.” (Page 11 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 page 12 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 13 of the response, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
166
488
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 14-15 of the response, Applicant submits 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 15-16 of the response, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
178
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
170
492
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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. Furthermore, 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.
On page 17 of the response, Applicant argues, “These computer-implemented operations improve the functioning of the monitoring platform by enabling accurate, scalable, and automated analysis of operational status, outages, and reliability across distributed facilities, which cannot be reasonably performed by humans or by computers lacking the claimed structured data and processing arrangement. Furthermore, the claims do not preempt any judicial exception. As MPEP § 2106.05(a) explains, a streamlined eligibility analysis is appropriate where a claim, viewed as a whole, clearly does not seek to tie up a judicial exception. The present claims narrowly recite a specific way of generating, structuring, and using multi-field labeled sensor data within a particular distributed monitoring architecture.” Applicant has not demonstrated that the additional elements perform anything beyond generic processing functions, both individually and when considered in combination. As to preemption, preemption is not a standalone test for patent eligibility. Preemption concerns have been addressed by the Examiner through the application of the Subject Matter Eligibility test. Applicant’s attempt to show that the recited abstract idea is a very narrow and specific one is not persuasive. A specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea and is not eligible for patent protection without significantly more recited in the claim.
Regarding the prior art rejections, the Examiner has withdrawn the rejections.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 15-18 and 20 are method claims and are, thus, limited in scope by positively recited steps. Independent claim 15 recites “in response to the operational status of one or more pieces of equipment being categorized into the second category or the third category, generating, at the user interface, a prompt requesting input for classifying an interruption of function for each of the one or more pieces of equipment” and “classifying the interruption of function for each of the one or more 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 and the input received in response to the prompt.” The phrase “in response to the operational status of one or more pieces of equipment being categorized into the second category or the third category” is conditional language. In the method claims, if an operational status is not categorized into the second category or the third category, then a prompt requesting input for classifying an interruption of function for each of the one or more pieces of equipment is not necessarily generated within the scope of the method claims. Additionally, since the prompt is not generated, then there is no antecedent basis for the prompt in the next step of classifying the interruption of function.
For examination purposes, claim 15 will be interpreted as incorporating a step that positively recites that the piece of equipment is at least categorized into the second category or the third category (so that the condition of “in response to the operational status of one or more pieces of equipment being categorized into the second category or the third category” is actively met within the scope of the method claims, thus triggering generation of the prompt, which is further used in the subsequent classifying step).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 geographically distributed facilities into a plurality of categories using the sensor data records for the pieces of equipment at the one or more geographically distributed facilities, the plurality of categories comprising a first category, a second category, and a third category;
generating a visual output specifying the operational status of the pieces of equipment at the one or more geographically distributed 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 one or more visual indicators generated based on the pieces of equipment being categorized in at least one of the first category, the second category, or the third category, wherein the visual output identifies each of the pieces of equipment using at least one of the equipment general description or the equipment specific description;
in response to the operational status of one or more pieces of equipment being categorized into the second category or the third category, generating a prompt requesting input for classifying an interruption of function for each of the one or more pieces of equipment;
classifying the interruption of function for each of the one or more 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 and the input received in response to the prompt;
determining a reliability of the pieces of equipment using the sensor data records and the classification of the interruption of function 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 and the classification of the interruption of function 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 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 specific piece of equipment of the pieces of equipment at the one or more geographically distributed facilities based on a comparison of the sensor data records to a threshold value; and
generating a work order for servicing the specific piece of equipment based on the comparison with the threshold value, the specific piece of equipment being identified in the sensor data records by the equipment specific description.
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 that the prompt is generated at the user interface.
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 that the prompt is generated at the user interface.
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 geographically distributed 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 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 prompt includes a detailed catalogue including periods of downtime over a predetermined period of time for the one or more pieces of equipment and classifications for downtime periods.
[Claim 12] wherein the interruption of function of the equipment is further classified based on input received in response to the prompt.
[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 that the prompt is generated at the user interface.
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 that the prompt is generated at the user interface.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 10-18, and 20 are allowed over the prior art of record. The claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and claims 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as well.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Brady et al. (US 2009/0143889) in view of Givens et al. (US 2010/0214094) in view of Nielsen et al. (US 2011/0191058) most closely address the various concepts recited in each of the independent claims, as seen in the last art rejection of claims 5 and 15 in the Office action dated March 18, 2026. However, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s invention would not have, in light of the teachings of the aforementioned references, found it obvious to create the claimed invention with the level of detail and specific manner of integration of operations as they are presented in each of the independent claims. Therefore, claims 5-8, 10-18, and 20 are deemed to be allowable over the prior art of record.
It is noted that this analysis is contingent on Applicant addressing the rejection of claims 15-18 and 20 and correcting the claim language to correspond to the Examiner’s interpretation of independent claim 15 to align in scope with claim 5. In other words, for examination purposes, claim 15 is interpreted as incorporating a step that positively recites that the piece of equipment is at least categorized into the second category or the third category (so that the condition of “in response to the operational status of one or more pieces of equipment being categorized into the second category or the third category” is actively met within the scope of the method claims, thus triggering generation of the prompt, which is further used in the subsequent classifying step).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights