DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed on 08/10/2026 in which claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-11, and 13 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled nor have any claims been added.
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
Applicant submits that no new matter has been added by way of amendment without providing citations to the pertinent sections of the specification holding support for the amendments to the claims.
The specification has been evaluated by the examiner to determine if any new matter has been introduced by way of these amendments. Adequate support for the amendments is found in at least [0046], [0085], and [0086] which demonstrates that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. No new matter has been added by way of the amendments to the present claims.
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Specification
Applicant has amended the specification to address previously cited objections for various informalities.
The amendments appear to overcome the objections sufficiently. The objection is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Applicant has amended the claims to address previously cited objections to the claims for various informalities.
The amendments sufficiently address the objections and have accordingly been withdrawn. However, further objections are noted in this action.
Double Patenting Rejection
Applicant has requested the deferment of filing a terminal disclaimer as well as that the provisional double patenting rejection be held in abeyance or provisionally withdrawn.
Per MPEP 804, “As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only compliance with objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.”. However, it appears that the amendment to the independent claims introduces a limitation which is not anticipated by the reference claims, nor found to be an obvious variant of the reference claims according to a secondary reference and therefore is patentably distinct from the reference claims because of such features. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection has accordingly been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues that the claims as amended are eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, applicant argues that any recited judicial exceptions identified in Step 2A Prong 1 of the claims are integrated into a physical, practical application under Step 2A Prong 2 because the independent claim 1 recites applying the determinations of the 1D CFD model in order to predict multiphase flow parameters and further recites the application of the predicted parameters to optimize various design parameters for the pipeline based transport system. Applicant alternatively argues, in a conclusory manner, that under step 2B, the combination of elements of the claim transforms the subject matter beyond an abstract idea.
The arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been considered and are not persuasive. The newly added claim language “optimizing one or more of pipeline diameter, pipeline trajectory in the terrain, number of pumps for pressure support, their location and pressure enhancing effect, number of chocking valves, their location and flow volume reducing effect on said section of the pipeline-based transport system based on the predicted velocity, pressure, density and temperature determined by the one-dimensional (ID) computational fluid dynamic (CFD) model.” is a further recitation of abstract ideas, as a mental process. Specifically an optimization is claimed of various design parameters according to the predicted values of the CFD model. The optimization is claimed in such a way that is not beyond human capacity. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, when using plain language, and when read in light of the specification, optimization of the claimed elements based on predicted values determined by the CFD model is a process that can be practically performed in the human mind or using assistive aids. For example, a human being is more than capable of evaluating the predicted velocity, pressure, density, and temperature in order to inform a judgement of the optimal pipeline diameter, pipeline trajectory in the terrain, number of pumps for pressure support, their location and pressure enhancing effect, number of choking valves, their location and flow volume reducing effect on the pipeline based transport system. The other amendments made to independent claim 1 are largely related to clarity in claim language and do not introduce additional elements beyond what was identified previously. The addition of a further mental process, per the amendment, does not provide for integration of the exception into a practical application nor significantly more than the exception.
Furthermore, the applicant has failed to properly amend, argue, or otherwise address the outstanding issue of claim 15 failing to fall into one of the four statutory categories of matter, as noted in the previous action as well as in the present action.
The claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant has amended the claims in response to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and argues that the amended claims sufficiently overcome the rejections.
The amendments appear to largely resolve the outstanding issues cited previously; however some issues remain and some new issues under 35 U.S.C. § 112 have been introduced per the amendments. Accordingly, there remains outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as described in this action.
Information Disclosure Statement
An information disclosure statement was received on 05/18/2026 for this application and is being considered by the examiner.
The IDS filed 05/18/2026 appears to resolve deficiencies noted in the previous action for the previous IDS dated 03/08/2023 where there was uncertainty as to the corresponding documents for the 7th listed entry Leveque, R. J., “Finite Volume Methods for Hyperbolic Problems”, Cambridge University Press, 2002, 15 pages. A new submission of the reference has been provided with a corresponding cover page that distinctively identifies the source of the pages as listed on the IDS. Furthermore, the scanned quality of the document submitted is acceptable and accordingly the document is being considered.
Further, the IDS filed 05/18/2026 appears to resolve deficiencies noted in the previous action for the previous IDS dated 03/08/2023 where the submitted corresponding document for the 9th listed entry Shu, Chi-Wang, “Positivity-preserving high order schemes for convention dominated equations”, Division of Applied Mathematics, Brown University, 63 Pages, Accessed on March 8, 2023 only contained the title/author of a presentation or the link without any material of substance which would be pertinent to the application. The new submission of the reference includes the pertinent slides with the corresponding cited 63 pages as listed in the IDS.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “chocking” in line 36 which should instead be spelled as “choking”.
Claims 12 and 14 contain steps which are distinguished by line indentations for each step, as well as wherein each step is accompanied by a corresponding dash (-). The dash in such steps is unnecessary and should be removed. The line indentations are sufficient alone to distinguish each step in the series of steps of these claims.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 15 rejected specifically for failing to fall into one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility:
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A Prong 1 - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Step 2a Prong 2 - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step 2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B - Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B- Significantly More.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities are further evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
The additional elements are then evaluated to determine if any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
solving the 1D CFD model to predict the velocity, pressure, density, and temperature of the multiphase flow in the section of interest of the pipeline-based transport system, and This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a 1D CFD model to make a judgement (prediction) as to the velocity, pressure, density, and temperature values in the section of interest. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by solving the equations of the model using pen and paper and making judgements to predict the pertinent values based on the solution. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Further, because this limitation recites the solving of a model, the claim further recites the abstract idea of mathematical calculations.
wherein applying the 1D CFD model comprises applying a finite volume method to solve the model, wherein the geometry of the section of interest of the pipeline-based transport system is defined as a computational domain extending along an axis represented by the cartesian coordinate x and being divided into a set of N, where N is a positive integer, non-overlapping finite control volumes separated by an internal face between adjacent finite control volumes; which can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a finite volume method to derive a judgement as to the solution of the model. The claim further entails discretizing a computational domain along an axis as a domain by which to apply computations. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive aid, for example by drawing a bounded computational domain with discretized elements. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Because the finite volume method is used to solve a model and the finite volume method is understood to be a numerical technique that is used to represent and evaluate partial differential equations as algebraic equations, this is further the recitation of mathematical calculations as an additional abstract idea.
estimating a mass flow of a k'th fluid phase out of a i'th finite control volume during an n'th time step by applying a polynomial to spatially reconstruct a mass, Pk(x), of the k'th fluid phase being present in each of the N finite control volumes of the computational domain, and then This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail performing an evaluation and judgement of mass flow at a kth fluid phase in an ith volume at an nth time step by applying a polynomial. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Further, by applying a polynomial to make the estimation, the claim further recites the abstract idea of mathematical calculations.
for each j 'th internal face, where j e l /2, ... , N + l /2, of the computational domain, executing the following steps i) and ii):i) reconstructing a flow velocity, uk(x), of the k'th fluid phase as a function of position x and applying the reconstructed flow velocity to determine a domain of dependence, Dk,j, representing a distance the k'th fluid phase has travelled during the n'th time step, and This limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating each internal face in the domain of interest to generate the flow velocity and to subsequently apply the reconstruction to make a judgement as to the domain of dependence. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Additionally, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept for the mathematical relationship described with the function of position x.
ii) summing the spatially reconstructed mass being present in the domain of dependence, Dk,j, and assuming the summed mass passes through the j'th internal face over the n'th time step, into the i'th finite control volume when Uk(Xj) < 0 or into the i+ l 'th finite control volume when Uk(Xj) > 0, where Uk(Xj) is the flow velocity at the j 'th internal face, and The claim limitations can be reasonably read to entail performing a summation and making assumptions about the results. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Additionally, the recitation of a summation is the explicit recitation of mathematical calculations. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
optimizing one or more of pipeline diameter, pipeline trajectory in the terrain, number of pumps for pressure support, their location and pressure enhancing effect, number of chocking valves, their location and flow volume reducing effect on said section of the pipeline-based transport system based on the predicted velocity, pressure, density and temperature determined by the one-dimensional (ID) computational fluid dynamic (CFD) model. This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the predicted velocity, pressure, density, and temperature from the model to make further judgements as to the optimal design parameters for the pipeline based transport system. This task may be performed using the human mind, for example a person can view the results of the modeled calculations and choose optimal designs based on such observations.
While the claim is repeatedly described as being performed in a computing environment, the courts do not distinguish between those mental processes performed in a computing environment or entirely in the human mind. Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception(s) of both mathematical concepts and mental processes.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
applying a one-dimensional (ID) computational fluid dynamic (CFD) model describing the geometry of a section of interest of the pipeline-based transport system and the multiphase flow flowing therein,- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for including mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on in a computing environment and for generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use.
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, no additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which would need to be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
The additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to by which to execute the judicial exception and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner notes limitations identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in italicized bold (and/or are directly copied as screenshots from the presented claims due to complexities with mathematical formatting) and limitations identified as additional elements are indicated using italics.
Claim 2
Step 1: The claim is directed to a method which falls into one of the statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Regarding dependent claim 2, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. Claim 2 additionally recites the limitation wherein the 1D CFD model applies an explicit numerical solution scheme., which is a further description of the judicial exception of mathematical concepts of mathematical calculations as recited in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 2 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 3, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim is directed to a method which falls into one of the statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 3 additionally recites the limitations wherein the method further comprises determining the domain of dependence for the i'th finite control volume,
D
k
,
j
, by executing the following steps i) to vii):
PNG
media_image1.png
360
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[[(continued on next page)]]
PNG
media_image2.png
958
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
244
740
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Such limitations can reasonably be read to entail performing a sequence of mathematical calculations. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. Furthermore, such steps may be performed as a mental process, because the courts do not distinguish between claimed steps which can be performed entirely in the human mind, using pen and paper as assistive physical aids, and those which are performed on a generic computer such as recited in the claims. While the claim does include the recitation of using a Fortran EPSILON computer function, this computer function is recited at a high level of generality that does not distinguish that which can be performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claim also recites an abstract idea of mental process except for the recitation of generic computing components by which to apply the exception.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 3 does not recite any additional limitations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 4, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim is directed to a method which falls into one of the statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation wherein the spatial
reconstruction over a whole domain of the mass, Pk(x), of the k'th fluid phase being present in each of the N finite control volumes of the computational domain is obtained by:
applying in each finite control volume a polynomial of even degree:
PNG
media_image4.png
72
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and further by:
for each i’th finite control volume, i=1 to N:
define a set of coefficients, ca, through the condition:
PNG
media_image5.png
140
694
media_image5.png
Greyscale
which can reasonably be read to entail performing a sequence of mathematical calculations. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. Furthermore, such steps may be performed as a mental process, because the courts do not distinguish between claimed steps which can be performed entirely in the human mind, using pen and paper as assistive physical aids, and those which are performed on a generic computer such as recited in the claims. Therefore, the claim also recites an abstract idea of mental process except for the recitation of generic computing components by which to apply the exception.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 4 does not recite any additional limitations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 5, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 5 additionally recites the limitation wherein the even degree polynomial is a second order polynomial, c0 + c1 x + c2x 2, and using that:
PNG
media_image6.png
295
537
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
79
609
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, which can reasonably be read to entail performing a sequence of mathematical calculations. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. Furthermore, such steps may be performed as a mental process, because the courts do not distinguish between claimed steps which can be performed entirely in the human mind, using pen and paper as assistive physical aids, and those which are performed on a generic computer such as recited in the claims. Therefore, the claim also recites an abstract idea of mental process except for the recitation of generic computing components by which to apply the exception.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 5 does not recite any additional limitations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 6, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim is directed to a method which falls into one of the statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 6 additionally recites the limitation wherein the spatially
reconstructed mass is applied to estimate a mass flux, Fk,j, across the j 'th internal face by:
PNG
media_image8.png
182
736
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, which can reasonably be read to entail performing a sequence of mathematical calculations. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. Furthermore, such steps may be performed as a mental process, because the courts do not distinguish between claimed steps which can be performed entirely in the human mind, using pen and paper as assistive physical aids, and those which are performed on a generic computer such as recited in the claims. Therefore, the claim also recites an abstract idea of mental process except for the recitation of generic computing components by which to apply the exception.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 6 does not recite any additional limitations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 7, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim is directed to a method which falls into one of the statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 7 additionally recites the limitation wherein the method further comprises, when applying an imposed mass flow rate, Fin,k, into the computational domain, that for each internal face j having a domain of dependence, D_k,j with a starting point, x_0,k^n, being outside of the computational domain n», the mass flow rate through internal face j I determined as:
PNG
media_image9.png
140
557
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, which can reasonably be read to entail performing a sequence of mathematical calculations. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. Furthermore, such steps may be performed as a mental process, because the courts do not distinguish between claimed steps which can be performed entirely in the human mind, using pen and paper as assistive physical aids, and those which are performed on a generic computer such as recited in the claims. Therefore, the claim also recites an abstract idea of mental process except for the recitation of generic computing components by which to apply the exception.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 7 does not recite any additional limitations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 8, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim is directed to a method which falls into one of the statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 8 additionally recites the wherein the method further comprises, when applying an imposed pressure boundary condition, that for each internal face j having a domain of dependence, Dk,j with a starting point, x_0,k^n, being outside of the computational domain P, the mass flow rate through internal face j is determined by extrapolating the velocity and applying:
PNG
media_image10.png
484
726
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, which can reasonably be read to entail performing a sequence of mathematical calculations. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. Furthermore, such steps may be performed as a mental process, because the courts do not distinguish between claimed steps which can be performed entirely in the human mind, using pen and paper as assistive physical aids, and those which are performed on a generic computer such as recited in the claims. Therefore, the claim also recites an abstract idea of mental process except for the recitation of generic computing components by which to apply the exception.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 8 does not recite any additional limitations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 9, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim is directed to a method which falls into one of the statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 9 additionally recites the limitation wherein the method
further comprises, for each i'th finite control volume, i = I to N, a rescaling of the polynomial
Pk,i(x) to preserve positivity by:
PNG
media_image11.png
214
615
media_image11.png
Greyscale
, which can reasonably be read to entail performing a sequence of mathematical calculations. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. Furthermore, such steps may be performed as a mental process, because the courts do not distinguish between claimed steps which can be performed entirely in the human mind, using pen and paper as assistive physical aids, and those which are performed on a generic computer such as recited in the claims. Therefore, the claim also recites an abstract idea of mental process except for the recitation of generic computing components by which to apply the exception.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 9 does not recite any additional limitations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 10, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim is directed to a method which falls into one of the statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 10 additionally recites the limitation wherein the method further comprises, for each i'th finite control volume, i = I to N, a rescaling of the polynomial Pk,i(x) to avoid spurious oscillations at discontinuities and extrema by:
PNG
media_image12.png
448
726
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
128
718
media_image13.png
Greyscale
, which can reasonably be read to entail performing a sequence of mathematical calculations. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. Furthermore, such steps may be performed as a mental process, because the courts do not distinguish between claimed steps which can be performed entirely in the human mind, using pen and paper as assistive physical aids, and those which are performed on a generic computer such as recited in the claims. Therefore, the claim also recites an abstract idea of mental process except for the recitation of generic computing components by which to apply the exception.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 10 does not recite any additional limitations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 11, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim is directed to a method which falls into one of the statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 11 additionally recites the limitation wherein the spatially reconstructed mass is applied to estimate a mass flux, Fk,j, across the j 'th internal face by:
PNG
media_image14.png
222
746
media_image14.png
Greyscale
, which can reasonably be read to entail performing a sequence of mathematical calculations. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. Furthermore, such steps may be performed as a mental process, because the courts do not distinguish between claimed steps which can be performed entirely in the human mind, using pen and paper as assistive physical aids, and those which are performed on a generic computer such as recited in the claims. Therefore, the claim also recites an abstract idea of mental process except for the recitation of generic computing components by which to apply the exception.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 11 does not recite any additional limitations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 12, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim is directed to a method which falls into one of the statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 12 additionally recites the limitation - preparing at least two different designs of the fluid transportation system, which can reasonably be read to entail making a judgment of two designs for the fluid transportation system. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by drawing designs for the fluid transportation system on a piece of paper. The claim further recites applying the predicted fluid behaviour to determine the optimised design of the fluid transportation system which can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the predicted fluid behavior to make a judgment of an optimized design of the fluid transportation system. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 12 additionally recites the limitation - applying the computer implemented method according to claim 1 to predict the fluid behaviour in each of the at least two different designs, and. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The courts have ruled including mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a generic computer does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to including mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a generic computer are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 13, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim is directed to a method which falls into one of the statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 13 additionally recites the limitation wherein the optimisation of the design of the transportation system assesses the effect on the fluid behaviour of varying one or more factors chosen from: pipeline diameter, pipeline trajectory in the terrain, number of pumps for pressure support, their location and pressure enhancing effect, and number of choking valves, their location and flow volume reducing effect with the aim to save capital investment and operational costs by identifying the optimum physical dimensions and/or trajectory in the terrain of the transport systems pipes without compromising on fluid behaviour stability and throughput, which can reasonably be read to entail making an evaluation of the effect of fluid behavior by varying different factors with regard for a target goal of saving investment and operational costs. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 13 does not recite any additional limitations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 14, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim is directed to a method which falls into one of the statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 14 recites the judicial exception applying the predicted fluid behaviours to determine which mitigation action which is to be physically implemented on the transport system having flow problems which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the predicted fluid behaviors to make a judgment on mitigation actions. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 14 additionally recites the limitation applying the computer implemented method according to claim 1 loaded with a computational domain representative for section of the transport system having flow problems and with flow characteristic input data of the flow in the transportation system to predict the effect on the fluid behaviour in the transport system from possible mitigation actions, and. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for amounting to an equivalent of the words “apply it on a computer” with regard for the judicial exception. The limitation has additionally further been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for generally linking the use of the judicial exception(s) to a particular technological environment or field of use. The courts have ruled including mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to including mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 15, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The computer program of the claim can be interpreted as software per se. The claim provides no required structural limitations which have physical or tangible form. Since the claim can be construed as software only, the claim fails to fall into one of the four statutory categories of subject matter.
The phrase “when the instructions are executed by a processing device” is non-functional descriptive language since the limitation does not necessitate that the device execute the computer program. That is to say, the execution of the instructions by the computer is not required by the claims. Because the claim is not directed to a statutory category of subject matter, the claim does not require any additional analysis. However, if the claim were amended to fall within a statutory category, the limitations of the claim would be further analyzed as such:
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 15 further incorporates the judicial exceptions recited in claim 1 but does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 15 additionally recites the limitation A computer program, comprising processing instructions which causes a computer to perform the method according to claim 1 when the instructions are executed by a processing device in the computer This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The courts have ruled including mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 16, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim is directed to a computer, which falls into one of the statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 16 additionally does not recite any additional judicial exceptions beyond what it incorporates from claims 15 and 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 16 additionally recites the limitation A computer, comprising a processing device and a computer memory, the computer memory is storing a computer program as set forth in claim 15.. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The courts have ruled including mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “optimizing one or more of pipeline diameter, pipeline trajectory in the terrain, number of pumps for pressure support, their location and pressure enhancing effect, number of chocking valves, their location and flow volume reducing effect on said section of the pipeline-based transport system based on the predicted velocity, pressure, density and temperature determined by the one-dimensional (ID) computational fluid dynamic (CFD) model” which lacks clarity and definiteness as to what is being claimed. Specifically there are multiple instances of the word “their” which appear ambiguous as to what is being claimed. For purposes of this examination, each recitation of “their” is being read to interpret the device directly preceding each recitation. That is the claim is being read as “optimizing one or more of pipeline diameter, pipeline trajectory in the terrain, number of pumps for pressure support, pump locations and pressure enhancing effects, number of choking valves, choking valve locations and flow volume reducing effects on said section of the pipeline-based transport system based on the predicted velocity, pressure, density and temperature determined by the one-dimensional (ID) computational fluid dynamic (CFD) mode” such that it is apparent what “their” is referring to. Claim 13 mirrors this language and is rejected for the same rationale.
Claims 2-16 incorporate the deficiency of claim 1 and are rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the calculation procedure" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear as to what procedure or aspect of the implemented steps is being referred to, seeing as how multiple procedural steps are included throughout the claim and the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, it is unclear if the calculation procedure encompasses the steps i) to vii), some subset of these steps such as only step v), or some alternative grouping of steps.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the following equation” in lines 25-26 and 30-31. Multiple equations follow this recitation and therefore it is unclear as to which specific equation is being referred to. For purposes of the examination, the equation immediately following the limitation is being interpreted as the equation at hand. To add clarity to which equation is being referenced, a numbering scheme for the equations in question may be employed to clearly identify which equation is of interest.
Claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 incorporate the deficiencies of claim 3 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 would be allowable over the prior art if rewritten to overcome all rejections as set forth in this action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record includes:
US 2018/0216442 A1 discloses a computing subsystem that simulates fluid flow along a wellbore and into the formation where the flow model models fluids in a combination of multiple fluid phases. The flow models can describe the dynamic behavior of fluid in the well and surrounding region by solving governing flow equations. The model is used to produce a fracture treatment plan based on the simulations performed. The system contains a visualization and analysis module to derive analytical results from the simulation for visualization purposes. Adaptive domain techniques are presented by which to reduce computational complexity by treating parts of the modeled domain in a simplified manner. The modeled domain may comprise one or multiple domains of influence. Some portions of the domain under analysis may be subject to true CFD solutions whereby assumptions may not be imposed. Regions outside of the domain of influence may be ignored under certain circumstances and assumptions. The simulator discretizes a given geometry and performs calculations at a plurality of time steps. States of the simulation may be subject to reconstruction after employed computational reduction techniques.
Dang, S., Meese, E., Morud, J., and Johansen, S., “Numerical approach for generic three-phase flow based on cut-cell and ghost fluid methods”, 2019, Int J Numer Meth Fluids, Vol 91, pp 419-447 discloses numerical methods to simulate complex multiphase flows. The approach suggests that existing methods can cause nonphysical phenomena near immersed boundaries but employs the cut cell method to strictly conserve mass and momentum. Geometric reconstruction of the interface is applied to compute the amount of fluid that will pass through the cells of the computational domain at a given time step.
Griebel, M., and Klitz, M., “CLSVOF as a fast and mass-conserving extension of the level-set method for the simulation of two-phase flow problems”, Numerical Heat Transfer, Part B: Fundamentals, 71:1, 1-36 discloses a simulation methodology for two phase fluid flow. The art discloses the implementation details of the complex CLSVOF method within a two phase Navier Stokes solver. The method is employed in a cartesian grid comprising grid cells within a computational domain. Geometric reconstruction is performed at the interface in order to compute VOF fluxes. The art suggests that the methodology may be adapted for implementation in a given specific simulation purpose.
EP 2926278B1 discloses computer implemented method of executing a one dimensional simulation of multiphase fluid flow in pipelines with consideration to the geometry of a cross section of the pipe. The simulation method enables determination of pressure drop, fluid volume fractions, and heat and mass transfer coefficients in multiphase pipeline flows. The pipeline geometry is given in terms of diameter and inclination angle with respect to a horizontal plane. Numerical models are employed based on Eulerian formulated transport equations of multiphase flow over the cross section of the pipeline. The computational domain is discretized into a mesh by which to employe the transport equations.
US 2016/0341850 A1 discloses a computational fluid dynamic model of an oil and gas pipeline network used to simulate fluid flow in such a network. Flow may be modeled using a 1D model.
US 20150286755 A1 discloses a one dimensional multi-phase fluid flow simulation methodology that is described as being used for the design and operation of oil and gas transportation lines or for designing and construction of engineering pipelines. The simulated methodology describes solving for parameters including velocity, pressure, density, and temperature. However, there is no explicit or suggested teaching of what design of the transport lines may entail in terms of parameters such as pipeline diameter, pipeline trajectory, number of pumps, location and effect of pumps, number of choking valves, or location or effect of choking valves. At best, the reference relies on pre-determined pipe diameters for employing the simulation but does not suggest modifying or finding such an optimal parameter resulting from the simulated output.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest at least the features recited in Claim 1: estimating a mass flow of a k'th fluid phase out of a i'th finite control volume during a n'th time step by applying a polynomial to spatially reconstruct a mass, Pk(x), of the k'th fluid phase being present in each of the N finite control volumes of the computational domain, and then
for each j 'th internal face, where j e l /2, ... , N + l /2, of the computational domain, executing the following steps i) and ii):
i) reconstructing a flow velocity, Uk(x), of the k'th fluid phase as a function of position x and applying the reconstructed flow velocity to determine a domain of dependence,
D
k
,
j
, representing the distance the k'th fluid phase has travelled during the n'th time step, and
ii) summing the spatially reconstructed mass being present in the domain of dependence,
D
k
,
j
, and assuming the summed mass passes through the j'th internal face over the n'th time step, into the i'th finite control volume when Uk(Xj) < 0 or into the i+ l 'th finite control volume when Uk(Xj) > 0, where Uk(Xj) is the flow velocity at the j 'th internal face, and
Because claims 2-16 depend on claim 1 and incorporate the matter indicated as being allowable over the prior art, the claims would likewise be allowed over the prior art if rewritten to overcome the remaining rejections as set forth in this office action.
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 EMILY GORMAN LEATHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1880. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:00 pm ET.
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, EMERSON PUENTE can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/E.G.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
