DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 24 August 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the independent claims, as a whole, do not merely recite mathematical calculations in the abstract because the claims include limitations related to the data receiving, data validation, data processing with machine learning, displaying information/data, generating an alarm, and presenting. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite a judicial exception (i.e., mathematical concept) as discussed below. Therefore, further analysis was performed to determine if the additional elements of the claims, like those noted by Applicant, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the exception as discussed below.
Applicant argues that the independent claims do not merely recite generation, analysis, or presentation of information and instead recite a practical application in which the data is validated, used to generate a pattern, evaluated, used to generate an alarm, and an indication of execution of a preventative action. Applicant argues these limitations integrate the judicial exception into a practical application involving monitoring and mitigation of physical pipeline flow conditions. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since none of the additional elements require the abstract idea in order to perform a particular action in order to achieve a particular solution/goal. Instead, the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities and/or mere instruction to apply the abstract idea (i.e., apply it) as discussed below.
Applicant argues that the claims are directed to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite an inventive concept and is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. Applicant argues that the claims require a specific ordered combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees since the ordered combination does not provide an inventive concept for the reasons discussed below.
Applicant argues that the claims are directed to a technological solution (i.e., detecting abnormal conditions in the production and transport of hydrocarbons) to a technological problem (i.e., the presence of slugging behavior). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The solution, as claimed, is not directed to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not an inventive concept and are well-understood, routine, or conventional for the reasons discussed below. The claim language needs to more precisely claim how the abstract idea is specifically used in order to achieve a specific goal/solution.
Applicant argues that the limitations of claim 22 ties the claimed forecasting operation into monitoring of physical pipeline conditions. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language merely recites that the GUI “enables” (i.e., to make something possible) the automatic surveillance. The claim language does not require the automatic surveillance. The clam language needs to more precisely recite hoe the GUI actually performs automatic surveillance withing the abstract idea.
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 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17, 19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17, 19, and 21-22 are directed to a method (process), a system (machine or manufacture), and a non-transitory medium (manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite abstract limitations, including: performing data validation of the field data before archiving the field data in a data repository; correlating the plurality of features across a set of historic data to generate time series data for each of the plurality of features; and processing the time series data by a machine learning model to generate multi-horizon forecast of a flow pattern for the well, the machine learning model being a single temporal fusion transformer model, and the flow pattern further comprises values of slug frequency, slug length, and slug amplitude, with a plurality of confidence intervals being forecasted for the flow pattern for the well for each time horizon.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, represent mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations and are therefore mathematical concepts. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claims recite the additional elements of: obtaining field data for a well, the field data comprising a plurality of features; receiving real-time data from a set of pipeline monitoring instruments communicated to a server through an Object Linking and Embedding for Process Control (OPC) interface, the set of pipeline monitoring instruments monitoring a pipeline operationally connected to the well; presenting the multi-horizon forecast of the flow pattern for the well, the presenting the multi-horizon forecast comprising: generating a graphical user interface that provides a visualization of the flow pattern in the pipeline; displaying, in the graphical user interface: the multi-horizon forecast of the flow pattern using data visualizations and the plurality of confidence intervals; and generating an alarm within the graphical user interface when a forecasted confidence interval, among the plurality of confidence intervals being forecasted, meets a threshold indicative of a slugging condition in the pipeline, the alarm being generated as at least one of a visual output or an audio output via one or more output devices, the alarm being generated based on the forecasted confidence interval meeting the threshold indicative of the slugging condition; presenting, responsive to generation of an indication for execution of at least one of a preventative action or a mitigation action, the indication being presented prior to a predicted occurrence of the slugging condition; non-transitory computer readable storage media/medium; processor; and memory.
The functions of the non-transitory computer readable storage media/medium, graphical user interface, output devices, processor, and memory are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“[O]btaining field data for a well, the field data comprising a plurality of features” and “receiving real-time data from a set of pipeline monitoring instruments communicated to a server through an Object Linking and Embedding for Process Control (OPC) interface, the set of pipeline monitoring instruments monitoring a pipeline operationally connected to the well” amount to insignificant extra-solution activities (i.e., activity incidental to the primary product/process that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“[P]resenting the multi-horizon forecast of the flow pattern for the well, the presenting the multi-horizon forecast comprising: generating a graphical user interface that provides a visualization of the flow pattern in the pipeline; displaying, in the graphical user interface: the multi-horizon forecast of the flow pattern using data visualizations and the plurality of confidence intervals” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., activity incidental to the primary product/process that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“[G]enerating an alarm within the graphical user interface when a forecasted confidence interval, among the plurality of confidence intervals being forecasted, meets a threshold indicative of a slugging condition in the pipeline, the alarm being generated as at least one of a visual output or an audio output via one or more output devices, the alarm being generated the alarm being generated as at least one of a visual output or an audio output via one or more output devices, the alarm being generated based on the forecasted confidence interval meeting the threshold indicative of the slugging condition” amounts to no more than mete instructions to apply the exception (i.e., “apply it”) (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I); MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
“[P]resenting, responsive to generation of an indication for execution of at least one of a preventative action or a mitigation action, the indication being presented prior to a predicted occurrence of the slugging condition” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., activity incidental to the primary product/process that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (using additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable storage media/medium, graphical user interface, output devices, processor, and memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Obtaining field data by receiving the data in real time is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitation of “obtaining” is considered insignificant extra-solution activities as the limitations amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and transmitting/receiving the data. As noted in Electric Power Group, selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis, and display is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
As discussed above, the recited step of “a set of pipeline monitoring instruments” for “monitoring a pipeline operationally connected to the well” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as Najim Al-Khamis (US 2009/0312964 see ¶ [0044]) discloses sensors (i.e., monitoring instruments) for monitoring a wellbore pipeline is well-known, routine, and conventional in the art.
“[P]resenting the multi-horizon forecast of the flow pattern for the well, the presenting the multi-horizon forecast comprising: generating a graphical user interface that provides a visualization of the flow pattern in the pipeline; displaying, in the graphical user interface, the multi-horizon forecast of the flow pattern using data visualizations” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitations of “presenting” and “displaying” are considered insignificant extra-solution activities as the limitation amount to displaying the results (i.e., outputs). As noted in Electric Power Group, selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis, and display is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally, the TLI court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) indicate that merely displaying results is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
“[G]enerating an alarm within the graphical user interface when a forecasted confidence interval, among the plurality of confidence intervals being forecasted, meets a threshold indicative of a slugging condition in the pipeline, the alarm being generated as at least one of a visual output or an audio output via one or more output devices, the alarm being generated based on the forecasted confidence interval meeting the threshold indicative of the slugging condition” merely amounts to “apply it”. The reciting of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution (i.e., prevent slugging) to an identified problem (i.e., slugging) with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (i.e., what aspects are changed or how the change is affected by the abstract idea) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
“[P]resenting, responsive to generation of an indication for execution of at least one of a preventative action or a mitigation action, the indication being presented prior to a predicted occurrence of the slugging condition” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitations of “presenting” is considered insignificant extra-solution activities as the limitation amount to displaying results. As noted in Electric Power Group, selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis, and display is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally, the TLI court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) indicate that merely displaying results is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claims 2-3, 6, 9-10, 13, 16-17, and 21-22 further recite:
processing the time series data by the machine learning model further comprises: determining short-term temporal characteristics at multiple forecasting horizons for each feature, including: encoding vector representations of the features that were correlated across the time series data; and decoding the vector representations to predict a short-term pattern for each feature at a forecast horizon;
processing the time series data by the machine learning model further comprises: determining long-term temporal characteristics at multiple forecasting horizons for each feature, including: generating a forecast at each horizon based on a short-term pattern predicted for each feature;
curating the training data set to include an appropriate number of data points for each flow condition which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations;
processing the time series data by the machine learning model further comprises processing output from a remote dependency layer by a dense layer to generate forecast ranges for each timestep of interest; and the forecast ranges are expressed as the plurality of confidence intervals comprising 10th, 50th, and 90th percent confidence intervals for predicted variables at the associated timestep; and
the graphical user interface enables automatic surveillance of pipeline flow patterns based on the multi-horizon forecast of the flow pattern.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 recite the abstract idea of “labeling each step of the time-series data with a corresponding flow pattern to form a training data set” and the additional element of training the machine learning model with the training data set. The training of the machine learning model is amounts to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component cannot be an inventive concept.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTYN A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-8384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/KRISTYN A HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights