DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
The action is responsive to the Amendment filed on November 4, 2025. Claims 1, 8, and 15 were amended. No claims were cancelled or added. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for maintaining buried pipelines subject to a wall-loss condition, the method comprising: generating a first data structure encoding a configuration of a buried pipeline and a tool, wherein the buried pipeline comprises a metal wall enclosing an interior space, wherein the tool is part of a smart pipeline intervention gauge (PIG) device configured to navigate the buried pipeline from inside the interior space, wherein the tool comprises a transmitter and multiple receivers, and wherein the multiple receivers are circumferentially positioned in the interior space and separated from the metal wall; obtaining a second data structure encoding a solver configured to simulate a response on one of the multiple receivers from inside the metal wall of the buried pipeline; applying the solver using the configuration of the buried pipeline and the tool when the transmitter sends a known electromagnetic (EM) waveform inside the metal wall of the buried pipeline; generating simulated responses on the multiple receivers from inside the metal wall of the buried pipeline; based on, at least in part, the simulated responses, training an inference model configured to predict the wall-loss condition of a particular buried pipeline; storing a third data structure encoding the inference model on the smart PIG device; releasing the smart PIG device into the particular buried pipeline; and predicting, using the inference model and obtained measurement data, the wall-loss condition of the particular buried pipeline. The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.” Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of claims 8 and 15.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a process claim. Likewise, claim 8 is an apparatus claim, and claim 15 is a computer program product claim.
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim., Under Step 2A, Prong One, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps recited in Claim 1 include at least one judicial exception, that being a mathematical process. This can be seen in the claimed process steps of “generating a first data structure encoding a configuration of a buried pipeline and a tool…” (See, for example, FIGS. 5A-6; ¶¶44-49, of the instant specification), “obtaining a second data structure encoding a solver configured to simulate a response on one of the multiple receivers from inside the metal wall of the buried pipeline…” (See, for example, FIGS. 1A-1B, 4A-4B; ¶¶34-41, of the instant specification), “applying the solver using the configuration of the buried pipeline and the tool when the transmitter sends a known electromagnetic (EM) waveform inside the metal wall of the buried pipeline…” (See, for example, FIG. 5A; ¶¶40-43, of the instant specification), “generating simulated responses on the multiple receivers from inside the metal wall of the buried pipeline…” (See, for example, FIGS. 17-20; ¶¶131-132, of the instant specification), “training an inference model…” (See, for example, FIGS. 5A-6; ¶¶40-43, of the instant specification), and “predicting, using the inference model and obtained measurement data, the wall-loss condition of the particular buried pipeline…” (See, for example, FIGS. 5A-5B; ¶¶42-44, of the instant specification), each of which encompasses mathematical concepts requiring specific mathematical calculations (“The inference model may incorporate an artificial neural network (ANN)” described in FIG. 5A, ¶42 of the instant specification.) to perform the creating the OPLS model using the multivariate tool and the training set, and therefore encompasses mathematical concepts. For example, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the steps of “generating,” “obtaining,” “applying,” “generating,” “training an inference model” and “predicting” are performed using one are more training algorithms (neural network(s)/model(s)).
Applicant is thanked for their amendments to claim 1, as well as claims 8 and 15, which include the element of “predicting, using the inference model and obtained measurement data, the wall-loss condition of the particular buried pipeline” which was presented in an effort to overcome the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, the newly presented step comprises at least the judicial exception of a mathematical concept, requiring specific mathematical calculations (“The inference model may incorporate an artificial neural network (ANN) with, for example, multiple layers of weighing network.” disclosed in FIG. 5A, ¶42 of the instant specification.). Thus, the newly presented limitation comprises at least the judicial exception of a mathematical concept, and is not patent eligible.
In claim 1, the steps of: “generating,” “obtaining,” “applying,” “generating,” and “inference model” and “predicting,” each fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. The recited process steps are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. Claims 8 and 15 recites recite similar abstract ideas. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
Each of the process steps “generating,” “obtaining,” “applying,” “generating,” and “inference model” and “predicting,” fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas and are recited as being performed by a computer (“a computer system 600 used to provide computational functionalities associated with described algorithms, methods, functions, processes, flows, and procedures, according to an implementation of the present disclosure. The illustrated computer 602 is intended to encompass any computing device such as a server, desktop computer, laptop/notebook computer, wireless data port, smart phone, personal data assistant (PDA), tablet computing device, one or more processors within these devices.” FIG. 6; ¶45, of the instant specification). The computer is recited at a high level of generality (“processors”). The computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of collecting data and performing the recited process steps. The computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recited process steps comprise an “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978).
Claim 1, as well as claims 8 and 15, also recites the step of “storing a third data structure encoding the inference model on the smart PIG device,” FIG. 3; ¶32, of the instant specification). However, this step merely comprises an “insignificant extra-solution” {post-solution} activity(ies). Additionally, Applicant is thanked for their amendments to claim 1, as well as claims 8 and 15, which include the element of “releasing the smart PIG device into the particular buried pipeline” (See, for example, FIG. 5B, ¶44, of the instant specification.), which was presented in an effort to overcome the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, the newly presented step merely comprises an “insignificant extra-solution” {post-solution} activity(ies). Thus, the newly presented limitation does not render the claim patent eligible.
It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the controller does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978).
Claim 1 also recites the additional elements (equipment) of “a buried pipeline…comprises a metal wall enclosing an interior space,” “a tool…part of a smart pipeline intervention gauge (PIG) device,” and “a transmitter and multiple receivers…multiple receivers are circumferentially positioned in the interior space and separated from the metal wall” (See, for example, FIGS. 1A-1B, 3; ¶¶25-33, of the instant specification). Claim 1 additionally recites data comprising “a known electromagnetic (EM) waveform” (See, for example, FIGS. 1A-1B, 3; ¶¶25-33, of the instant specification). However, these additional elements merely comprise generic conventional non-specific equipment, and computer hardware and software elements, and data/information, and is/are set forth at a highly generic level and each of which comprise an “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). Claims 8 and 15 recites analogous additional elements.
The recited additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements recited in claim 1, as well as claims 8 and 15, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed method. For instance, nothing is done once the wall-loss condition of the particular buried pipeline is predicted.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (Claims 1, 8, 15). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claims 8 and 15, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1, as well as claims 8 and 15, is not patent eligible under 101.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on November 4, 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant is thanked for their arguments which were presented in an effort to overcome the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 persists.
In regard claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, Examiner’s position and supporting remarks are presented in the rejection above.
Additionally, Applicant argues (Remarks pp. 8-9) that the claims as amended are not directed to an abstract idea and should be patent eligible. Again, Applicant is thanked for their arguments and amendments which were presented in an effort to overcome the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As noted above, the amendments to claim 1, as well as claims 8 and 15, which include the element of “predicting, using the inference model and obtained measurement data, the wall-loss condition of the particular buried pipeline” which was presented in an effort to overcome the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, the newly presented step comprises at least the judicial exception of a mathematical concept, requiring specific mathematical calculations (“The inference model may incorporate an artificial neural network (ANN) with, for example, multiple layers of weighing network.” disclosed in FIG. 5A, ¶42 of the instant specification.). Thus, the newly presented limitation comprises at least the judicial exception of a mathematical concept, and is not patent eligible.
Likewise, the amendments to claim 1, as well as claims 8 and 15, which include the element of “releasing the smart PIG device into the particular buried pipeline” (See, for example, FIG. 5B, ¶44, of the instant specification.), which was presented in an effort to overcome the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, the newly presented step merely comprises an “insignificant extra-solution” {post-solution} activity(ies). Thus, the newly presented limitation does not render the claim patent eligible.
Applicant is directed to the newly released 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) in the Federal Register on July 17, 2024, and effective on that date. Particularly, Applicant is directed Examples 47-49 on “Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas,” and particularly to Example 47 of the July 2024 update.
Therefore, the rejection of the independent claims, claim 1, as well as claims 8 and 15, under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Similarly, the rejection of the dependent claims, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY P AIELLO whose telephone number is (303) 297-4216. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEFFREY P AIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights