DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to applicant’s request for amendments filed on 10/02/2025.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6- 8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, and 20 are amended. Claims 2, 5, 9, 12, 16, and 19 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 are considered in this Office Action. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “the diagnostic work element by using a a ratio of total number of investigated notifications of equipment”. The article “a” is repeated twice. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Argument
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
In response to Applicant’s amendments to claims, the examiner notes Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged. The 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant asserts that applicant’s amendments overcome 35 U.S.C. §112(a). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner does not find the amendments sufficient to overcome the rejection as set forth in the record. The examiner notes applicant’s amendments do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. §112(a). Examiner advises applicant to provide clarification by disclosing paragraph numbers to provide sufficient written description and/or amendment to overcome the rejections. Therefore, the rejections are maintained. An updated U.S.C. §112(a) rejections will address applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection to claims have been considered, but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the claimed invention is specifically integrated into a practical application because it recites specific and unconventional steps for achieving an improved technological result. The independent claims 1, 8, and 15 describe a specific technique, by which measured data is used to update gas processing plant operations, plant, by controlling pressure relief valves. In this manner, claims include automatic adjustment of gas processing plant operations, which along with the other steps in the claim, is used for controlling one or more valve operations, thereby achieving an improved technological result. Consequently, the claims are not merely directed to "mathematical concepts", nor do they merely cover "mental processes," as alleged in the Office Action (p. 9) Thus, for similar reasons as described in the Federal Circuit's holding in DDR Holdings, the claimed invention here is directed to patent eligible subject matter.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that using a processer (i.e., claim 15) to “operating the gas processing plant based on the total score indicative of a mechanical integrity of the gas processing plant defining a limitation to maintain safe production" has been considered. The application of calculation of total score by "operating the gas processing plant, by controlling pressure relief valves, based on the total score indicative of a mechanical integrity of the gas processing plant defining a limitation to maintain safe production,” while recited at high level of generality are found by the examiner to be similar to the examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity such as: i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App’x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The examiner further points to MPEP 2106.05, where the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception is not in itself an inventive concept and does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1983-84 (alterations in original). See also Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1547 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (steps of DNA amplification and analysis “do not, individually or in combination, provide sufficient inventive concept to render claim 1 patent eligible” merely because they are physical steps). Conversely, the presence of a non-physical or intangible additional element does not doom the claims, because tangibility is not necessary for eligibility under the Alice/Mayo test. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F .3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“that the improvement is not defined by reference to ‘physical’ components does not doom the claims’). See also McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant argues that the claims recite additional elements that apply or use the alleged judicial exception in a meaningful way. For example, claims 1, 8, and 15, as amended, recite in part: “operating the gas processing plant, by controlling pressure relief valves, based on the total score indicative of a mechanical integrity of the gas processing plant defining a limitation to maintain safe production, wherein a preventive work element score for safeguarding of the safe production of the gas processing plant is determined by applying a weight to a timeliness factor and an overdue factor, wherein the timeliness factor reflects how timely equipment vibration monitoring program (EVMP) is being completed, and wherein the overdue factor is a duration for which EVMP evaluation is overdue." As described in the preceding paragraphs, the specific improvement of the additional elements also allows for machine operations for enhancing safety operations of gas processing plants.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that using a processer (i.e., claim 15) to “operating the gas processing plant based on the total score indicative of a mechanical integrity of the gas processing plant defining a limitation to maintain safe production" has been considered. The application of calculation of total score by "operating the gas processing plant, by controlling pressure relief valves, based on the total score indicative of a mechanical integrity of the gas processing plant defining a limitation to maintain safe production,” while recited at high level of generality are found by the examiner to be similar to the examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity such as: i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App’x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The examiner further points to MPEP 2106.05, where the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception is not in itself an inventive concept and does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1983-84 (alterations in original). See also Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1547 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (steps of DNA amplification and analysis “do not, individually or in combination, provide sufficient inventive concept to render claim 1 patent eligible” merely because they are physical steps). Conversely, the presence of a non-physical or intangible additional element does not doom the claims, because tangibility is not necessary for eligibility under the Alice/Mayo test. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F .3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“that the improvement is not defined by reference to ‘physical’ components does not doom the claims’). See also McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection to claims are maintained and an updated 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection will address applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 each recite the phrase “…operating the gas processing plant, by controlling pressure relief valves, based on the total score indicative of a mechanical integrity of the gas processing plant defining a limitation to maintain safe production, wherein a preventive work element score for safeguarding of the safe production of the gas processing plant is determined by applying a weight to a timeliness factor and an overdue factor, wherein the timeliness factor reflects how timely equipment vibration monitoring program (EVMP) is being completed” However, the Examiner is unable to find any generic or specific description or steps in the instant specification that show that Applicant was in possession of a technique that operates the gas processing plant by controlling pressure relief valves based on the total score indicative of a mechanical integrity of the gas processing plant defining a limitation to maintain safe production, wherein a preventive work element score for safeguarding of the safe production of the gas processing plant is determined by applying a weight to a timeliness factor and an overdue factor, wherein the timeliness factor reflects how timely equipment vibration monitoring program (EVMP) is being completed. Applicant’s Specification discloses in para. [0002] “Process plants, e.g., gas processing plants, need to operate reliably to maintain production requirements, prevent unscheduled maintenance and repair, avoid costly accidents and prevent environmental damage. Process plants deploy several assets (machinery and people). One measure of a plant’s reliability is the total operating time of an asset by a number of asset failures over a given period of time.” “[0031] Thus, PRPI is a score-based methodology to measure the reliability programs performance and effectiveness in assets (including corporate assets) used to operate a process plant.” “[0057] The third factor evaluated to determine the preventive work element score for the process plant is operation integrity window (OIW). The OIW monitoring score measures lubrication condition monitoring compliance level during the evaluation year. OIW represents a further limitation within the broader operating window of any measurable operating parameter which can suffer the mechanical integrity of the plant due to corrosion or degradation of the material when operated outside the OIW. The broader operating window is established from the process and equipment design, and is safeguarded by alarms, trips, pressure relief valves and other delimiting devices. But, it may not have fully addressed all possible degradation issues. Also, even if all potential degradation has been addressed during design, operational variations, design and construction faults and/or design changes can make the original design susceptible to degradation, which may further require limitation of the operating window. Therefore, OIWs are typically inside the operating range where “operations” are, in principle, allowed to work. An OIW is established only from measurable and controllable parameters. The parameters used to define an OIW have one or more of the following characteristics: parameters are either single, independently controlled process variable, such as temperature, pressure, pH, chemical injection rate, concentration, etc., or they are calculated variables', for instance: flow ratios, dew point conditions, corrosion rates taken from OSI; the OIW can be based on a physical condition of the equipment, such as, degree of vibration, shin temperature etc. In addition to containing the operating parameters that directly affect mechanical integrity of the process, an OIW may also contain operating parameters related to other operational limits, such as fouling or foaming limit.” However, the specification is silent on operating the gas processing plant by controlling pressure relief valves based on the total score indicative of a mechanical integrity of the gas processing plant defining a limitation to maintain safe production, wherein a preventive work element score for safeguarding of the safe production of the gas processing plant is determined by using the first formula as recited in the claims.
Furthermore, since the above-noted limitations are implemented by the computer implement method (claim 1), processor executing instructions (claim 8), and a computer system (claim 15), it is noted that, “When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement.” If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made. MPEP § 2161.01(I) (emphasis added).
Thus, there is no evidence of a complete specific application or embodiment to satisfy the requirement that the description is set forth “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms” to show possession of the claimed invention. Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 1392, 170 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA 1971).
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 20 depend from one of claims 1/8/15 and fail to cure the deficiency noted above, and are therefore rejected based on dependency.
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, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the “Patent Subject Matter Eligibility” (MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 1, 3-4, and 6-7), the non-transitory computer readable medium (claims 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14), and the system (claims 15, 17, 18, and 20) are directed to an eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture respectively). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of calculating reliability performance indices that measure operational levels and readiness of such process plants which can be categorized as “Mental process” and “mathematical concepts”. The abstract idea can be categorized as “mental process” because it is directed concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or by the aid of a pen and/or paper and within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2106.04(a). The limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted in italics and the limitation directed to additional elements highlighted in bold, as set forth in exemplary claim 15, are: A computer system comprising: one or more processors; and a computer-readable medium storing computer instructions which when executed by the one or more processors is configured to perform a method implemented in a gas processingand operating the gas processing plant, by controlling pressure relief valves, based on the total score indicative of a mechanical integrity of the gas processing plant defining a limitation to maintain safe production, wherein a preventive work element score for safeguarding of the safe production of the gas processing plant is determined using by applying a weight to a timeliness factor and an overdue factor, wherein the timeliness factor reflects how timely equipment vibration monitoring program (EVMP) is being completed, and wherein the overdue factor is a duration for which EVMP evaluation is overdue and wherein overdue factor is a duration for which EVMP is overdue. Claims 1 and 8 recite substantially the same limitations as claim 15, and therefore are directed to the same rational.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to a computer system comprising: one or more processors; a computer-readable medium storing computer instructions which when executed by the one or more processors (recited at high level of generality), and operating the gas processing plant, by controlling pressure relief valves, based on the total score indicative of a mechanical integrity of the gas processing plant defining a limitation to maintain safe production (recited at high level of generality and amounts to post solution activity)to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification figure [0033] describe high level general purpose computer) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in MPEP 2106) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). The step to receive data, although part of the abstract idea itself, also encompass insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, which is not indicative of a practical application. Further, the step of "operating the gas processing plant based on the total score indicative of a mechanical integrity of the gas processing plant defining a limitation to maintain safe production", while recited at high level of generality are found by the examiner to be similar to the examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity such as: i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App’x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The examiner further points to MPEP 2106.05, where the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception is not in itself an inventive concept and does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1983-84 (alterations in original). See also Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1547 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (steps of DNA amplification and analysis “do not, individually or in combination, provide sufficient inventive concept to render claim 1 patent eligible” merely because they are physical steps). Conversely, the presence of a non-physical or intangible additional element does not doom the claims, because tangibility is not necessary for eligibility under the Alice/Mayo test. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F .3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“that the improvement is not defined by reference to ‘physical’ components does not doom the claims’). See also McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to a computer system comprising: one or more processors; and a computer-readable medium storing computer instructions which when executed by the one or more processors (recited at high level of generality) and operating the gas processing plant, by controlling pressure relief valves, based on the total score to maintain production requirements and to prevent unscheduled maintenance and repair (recited at high level of generality) to implement the abstract idea. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification (paragraph [0033]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of mathematical concept and a mental process, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general-purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examiner Notes
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 are objected, but would be allowable, if they were amended in such a way to overcome the 35 USC 101 and 112(a) rejection set forth in the action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CN 117078398 A
Reliability determination method, device, storage medium and electronic device
ZHUANG, Qing-yun et al.
US 20070192128 A1
System and Method for Managing Manufacturing Information
Celestini; Stefano
US 20200202282 A1
System And Method for Calculating Availability Points for Workforce Scheduling
CHENNUPATI; Kalyani Jyotii et al.
US 20180143975 A1
Collection Strategies That Facilitate Arranging Portions of Documents into Content Collections
Casal; Marcus Alexander et al.
CN 114819499 A
Device management system and method based on pipeline asset integrity management level evaluation
JIA, Yan-jie et al.
US 20200103838 A1
Plant State Operating Analysis and Control
Bertinetti; Mark et al.
US 20140189706 A1
Reliability-Aware Application Scheduling
Baek; Woongki et al.
WO 2018018127 A1
A Dynamic Quality Control Workforce Management System, Device, Method, and Computer-Readable Medium
Fine Ian
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 REHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-0419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571)-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REHAM K ABOUZAHRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625