DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea of managing and processing sensor data based on AI-enabled edge computing.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
An oil and gas metering system comprising:
an edge platform comprising at least one of a supervisory computer or a peripheral device, the supervisory computer or the peripheral device comprising one or more memory devices storing instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
S1: receive historical data values from an oil and gas metering subsystem, the historical data values comprising values of a plurality of data points for a plurality of historical times;
S2: evaluate the historical data values by at least one of the supervisory computer or the peripheral device to generate evaluation results;
S3: generate user interface data comprising at least one of the historical data values or the evaluation results;
S4: transmit the user interface data; and
a cloud platform configured to receive the user interface data from the edge platform and provide the user interface data to a user device, the user interface data causing the user device to display a graphic representation of the oil and gas metering subsystem.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
System
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
See the bolded portion listed above.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), each of the limitations S2 and S3 encompasses mental processes, i.e., data analysis, evaluation and/or concepts that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. The elements of “at least one of the supervisory computer or the peripheral device” are recited at a high level of generality. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself.
Nothing in the bolded portion precludes the limitations S2 and S3 from practically being performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. As such, the bolded portion of instant claim 1 falls within the “Mental Process” Grouping of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
Instant claim 1 recites the additional elements: “an edge platform …”, “S1: receive historical data values …”, “S4: transmit the user interface data”, “a cloud platform configured to …”, and “ … causing the user device to display a graphic representation of the oil and gas metering subsystem”.
Under the BRI, the limitation “an edge platform comprising …” encompasses merely a general-purpose computer deployed at a selected location. It is held that using a general-purpose computer to perform computing activities via basic function of the computer for practicing an abstract idea does not amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Under the BRI, the limitation S1 encompasses an insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e., necessary data gathering). According to MPEP 2106.05(g)(3): … that were described as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. See also Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 13863, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
Under the BRI, the limitation S4 encompasses an insignificant post-solution activity (i.e., transmitting or displaying the algorithm results), which does not amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Under the BRI, the limitation “a cloud platform configured to receive the user interface data from the edge platform and provide the user interface data to a user device” encompasses a general-purpose computer deployed at a selected location to perform computing activities via basic function of the computer but does not amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Both the elements of “a user device” and “the oil and gas metering subsystem” are recited at a high level of generality, while “causing the user device to display a graphic representation of the oil and gas metering subsystem” is deemed an insignificant post-solution activity (i.e., transmitting or displaying the algorithm results), which does not amount to be significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Further, the “the oil and gas metering subsystem” as recited does not require any particular devices or sensors to perform the “metering”. It could just as easily relate to the acquisition of the data from, e.g., look-up tables as opposed to the generation of actual measurement data on-site. Thus claim 1 would monopolize the abstract idea across a wide range of applications.
In general, the claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the algorithm across a wide range of applications.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
See analysis given in 2A - Prong 2 above.
Focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, it is considered that the “heart” of pending claim 1 is directed to an algorithm of evaluating historical data values and generating evaluation results, except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer. The claim does not recite any additional element that is qualified for “significantly more” or reflects an “inventive concept” (see also MPEP 2106.05).
Under the BRI, the recited “oil and gas metering system”, “an edge platform” and “a cloud platform” are all considered "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see discussion of prior art as set forth in section 4-5 below).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 2-8 inherit attributes of the independent claim 1, but do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. These claims merely extend (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because they merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Regarding claims 2-4, “generating a plurality of different operating scenarios for operating equipment of the oil and gas subsystem for the plurality of historical times; and simulating a plurality of values of data points of the oil and gas subsystem for the plurality of historical times based on the plurality of different operating scenarios and the historical data values” read on mental processes of data manipulation, evaluation and judgment. The recited limitations to the “plurality of different operating scenarios” encompass merely data characterization which can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the relevant technological environment or field of use.
Claim 6 recites “using an artificial intelligence model to determine which of the plurality of data values contributes most significantly to the uncertainty”. In view of the USPTO’s July 17, 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (e.g., Examples 47-49), a prediction using a machine learning model is considered an abstract idea if the claim focuses solely on the concept of making predictions/determination using a generic machine learning algorithm, without any specific technical improvements or applications that go beyond the basic idea of using a computer to analyze data and generate predictions; essentially, if the claim is too high-level and does not describe a concrete, inventive implementation of the machine learning process. In the instant case, the recited “using an artificial intelligence model to determine …” generally applies the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the “artificial intelligence model” function. Rather, the claim only recites the outcome of the AI model but does not include any details about how the “determine” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, under the BRI, “an artificial intelligence model” may be interpretated as software, hardware or combinations thereof. An element directed to functional descriptive material, including computer programs, per se, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer as a tool commonly known in the art.
Claims 7 and 8 recite mental processes of data manipulation, evaluation and opinions. The rest of the claimed limitations encompass data characterization which generally links the use of the judicial exception to the relevant technological environment or field of use.
Claims 9-20 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claims 1-8.
Hence instant claims 1-20 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leong et al. (US 20210174952 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, Leong discloses an oil and gas metering system (para. 0113: see discussion of various sensors and measurement units; see also para. 0114: “incident detection (e.g., temperature, chemical leakage, etc)”), a method for practicing the system, and a computer program product for implementing the system/method, the system comprising: an edge platform (para. 0051) comprising at least one of a supervisory computer or a peripheral device (e.g., 115 of Fig. 1), the supervisory computer or the peripheral device comprising one or more memory devices storing instructions thereon (see discussion of 710/731 of Fig. 7; and para. 0123) that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive historical data values from an oil and gas metering subsystem, the historical data values comprising values of a plurality of data points for a plurality of historical times (para. 0098: “pre-processing of stream data and batch data collected from the sensor devices 701-1, 701-2, … the data processing module 711 may support ingesting of sensor data into a local storage repository 731 (e.g., local time-series database), …”; para. 0100: “the data processing module 711 may also be configured to aggregate the raw data across a time duration”; see also para. 0101, 0109); evaluate the historical data values by at least one of the supervisory computer or the peripheral device to generate evaluation results (para. 0006: “processing, at the edge computing device, the data stream to identify a hazardous condition and a health condition of a user associated with the user device; and automatically generating a dynamic geofencing area in the remote workplace base at least in part on the hazardous condition and the health condition”; para. 0073: “The edge computing server 604 may analyze the data stream with aid of one or more predictive models, the output result may be an alert indicating a detected incident such as fall or trip, a prediction of a impeding adverse event such as a hazardous condition in a work zone, and various other functionalities as described elsewhere herein”; see also para. 0087, 0119, 0124); generate user interface data comprising the evaluation results, and transmit the user interface data (para. 0070: “data transmitted from the edge computing server 604 to the personnel device may include, for example, alert, feedback workflow instructions/guidance, or smart form generated by the edge computing server”; para. 0075-0076, 0142, 0147); and a cloud platform (cloud/data center 117 of Fig. 1 or 610 of Fig. 6) configured to receive the user interface data from the edge platform (para. 0058: “The edge computing device 115 may be in communication with a remote cloud/data center 117 through the gateways …, and transmitting data such as fleet data (e.g., data from the on-shore operating system, data collected onboard the vessel) and various others”; para. 0075: “for storing the data transmitted from the edge computing system or the local network … such as report, alert, historical data, …”; para. 0076) and provide the user interface data to a user device (para. 0088: “the predictive model for detecting an adverse event or predicting hazardous condition may be pre-trained on the cloud and transmitted to the user device, wearable device or edge computing system for implementation”; see also para. 0107, 0128, 0133: “a user may be prompted to confirm or deny the occurrence of the event via a GUI”), the user interface data causing the user device to display a graphic representation of the oil and gas metering subsystem (para. 0141-0144).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18, Leong discloses: wherein evaluating the historical data values comprises: generating a plurality of different operating scenarios for operating equipment of the oil and gas subsystem for the plurality of historical times (para. 0087); and simulating a plurality of values of data points of the oil and gas subsystem for the plurality of historical times based on the plurality of different operating scenarios and the historical data values (para. 0068: “the detection of an incident (e.g., trip, slip, fall), detection of fatigue level, predicting a hazardous zone or condition may be provided using a predictive model”; para. 0088: “sensor data may be transmitted to the cloud 720 which are used to update the model for continual training and the updated model (e.g., parameters of the model that are updated) may be downloaded to the local or edge system …”; se also para. 0093).
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19, Leong discloses: wherein evaluating the historical data values comprises: generating a plurality of performance scores (e.g., hazardous condition level, performance metrics, etc.) for a plurality of different operating scenarios based on at least one of the historical data values of the plurality of data points or the evaluation results, and determining a future recommendation (e.g., workflow or tasks assignment for one or more operators and one or more groups) for the oil and gas metering subsystem based on the plurality of performance scores for the plurality of different operating scenarios (para. 0103, 0109, 0111).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Leong discloses: wherein the plurality of different operating scenarios include at least one of different control algorithms for the oil and gas metering subsystem, different control schedules for the oil and gas metering subsystem, installation of new equipment in the oil and gas metering subsystem, or maintenance of equipment for the oil and gas metering subsystem (para. 0052, 0161).
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 20, Leong discloses: wherein evaluating the historical data values comprises comparing a measured output of the historical data values with a desired output (para. 0109, 0157); wherein generating the user interface data comprises issuing a notification in response to the measured output being at least three standard deviations from the desired output (para. 0109, 0111).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Leong discloses: wherein evaluating the historical data values comprises: determining an uncertainty in an evaluation result of the evaluation results (para. 0132: “may be analyzed to determine a probability of …”; para. 0152); identifying a plurality of data values (para. 0132: “e.g., motion data, accelerometer data, physiological data, biometric data, etc.” para. 0152: “the exposure levels to occupational risks, including such as frequency of exposure to areas with toxic substances, areas with high noise levels, areas with high vibration levels, areas with high heat index with a potential risk of causing heat stress to the individual and the like”) of the historical data values that contribute to the evaluation result; and using an artificial intelligence model to determine which of the plurality of data values contributes most significantly to the uncertainty (para. 0008: “the hazardous condition is identified by processing the data stream using a machine learning algorithm trained mode”; para. 0051: “the safety and risk management system may employ an edge intelligence paradigm that data processing and prediction/inference is performed at the edge or edge gateway 115”; para. 0134: “The fatigue level may be detected using any suitable analysis techniques such as using a trained predictive model to process the real-time motion data and/or biometric data”; see also para. 0135).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Leong discloses: wherein evaluating the historical data values comprises generating a recommendation based on the evaluation results, wherein the recommendation comprises a recommendation to reduce production activities in response to a level of emissions exceeding an allowable limit (para. 0161: “For such areas, the geofence duration may be set by the system automatically according to the duration of work being carried out (e.g., as specified in the system by an individual/supervisor, different scheduled activities and geofence may automatically update as work tasks progress) or according to a real-time environment condition change or activity change detected by the system”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leong et al.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Leong discloses: wherein evaluating the historical data values comprises generating a recommendation (e.g., workflow or tasks assignment for one or more operators and one or more groups) based on the evaluation results, wherein the recommendation comprises at least one of a recommendation to install a new control algorithm (para. 0088: “the updated model (e.g., parameters of the model that are updated) may be downloaded to the local or edge system (e.g., user device, software application of the on-ship system) for implementation”).
Leong is silent on: to purchase the new control algorithm.
Examiner takes official notice that purchasing a new version of a software application for upgrades is a common practice of business transactions between the vendor and the user if it requires a paid upgrade. Since Leong teaches the general condition of the disclosed system/method (para. 0048) as well as the practical need for updating the control algorithm (para. 0088), it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a step of purchasing a new version of the control algorithm into Leong’s recommendation to arrive the claimed invention. Doing so would certainly improve the feasibility and applicability of the Leong invention. It has been held that the mere application of a known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Contact Information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857