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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the limitation directed to obtaining field date by receiving it from pipeline monitoring instruments and performing data validation ties the invention to physical pipeline infrastructure and therefore should not be rejected under 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The performance of data validation is an abstract idea as discussed below and while the obtaining field data by receiving real-time data from a set of pipeline monitoring instruments is an additional element. The additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-known, routine, and conventional as discussed below.
Applicant argues that the specifically identified machine learning model that forecasts physical flow behavior in a pipeline is not a mathematical concept in the abstract. Examiner respectfully disagrees. A specific machine learning model (i.e., a single temporal fusion transformer model) is an abstract idea because it is a specific mathematical concept.
Applicant argues that the generating a GUI, displaying, and generating an alarm recites concrete visualization and alerting operations tied to abstract idea and therefore overcome the 101 rejection. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the limitations are additional elements. The limitations are also insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-known, routine, and conventional as discussed below The alarm is merely displaying specific data which is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-known, routine, and conventional as discussed below.
In order for visual/audio outputs to overcome the 101 rejection they need to be much more specific in how the information is displayed/conveyed.
The fact that the displaying of the information enables the user to make decisions prior to the occurrence of events does not overcome the 101 rejections because the limitation is merely presenting/displaying the abstract idea. There is no recitation as to what action is taken prior to the occurrence (i.e., corrective action).
The 101 rejections related to claims 8-14 directed to nonstatutory subject matter because the claims did not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter are withdrawn due to amendments.
The 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due to amendments.
The 102 and 103 rejections are withdrawn due to amendments. However, the claims are still rejected under 101 as discussed below.
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 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 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 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 prior to occurrence of the slugging condition in the pipeline; 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” 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 prior to occurrence of the slugging condition in the pipeline” 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 prior to occurrence of the slugging condition in the pipeline” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitations of “generating” an alarm as “a visual output” is considered insignificant extra-solution activities as the limitation amount to displaying 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).
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 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; and
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.
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
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.
/KRISTYN A HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights