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 .
Claims 1-16 have been presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “acoustic monitoring system”, acoustic surveillance system”, “confirmation engine” and “process controller” in claims 13 and 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Sufficient structure can be found in applicants specification (paragraph 0025) and Figure 1.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 3-8, 10-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1: A computer implemented method comprising:
generating acoustic waves using an acoustic wave generator;
propagating the acoustic waves through a fluid in a hydrocarbon pipeline network;
using a processor to:
generate acoustic wave data representative of the propagated acoustic waves;
evaluate the acoustic wave data to determine a change in density of the fluid; and
determine, by a confirmation engine, that a correlation exists between the change in density of the fluid and process parameters that include temperature, pressure, flowrate, and fluid phase.
Step 1: The claim is directed to a machine which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Limitations (i)-(iii) in the claim recites a processor for “generate acoustic wave data representative of the propagated acoustic waves”, “evaluate the acoustic wave data to determine a change in density of the fluid”, and “determine… that a correlation exists between the change in density of the fluid and the process parameters…”. At a high level, these represent Mental Processes (i.e. observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) and Mathematical Concepts (i.e., mathematical relationships, formulas and calculations) group of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites the additional elements of generating and propagating acoustic waves by an acoustic wave generator through a fluid in a hydrocarbon pipeline network to generate acoustic waves data… The claim implies sensors to receive the acoustic waves generated by the acoustic wave generator which would facilitate the generation of acoustic waves data. While the courts have indicated that a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors, Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49, 121 USPQ2d 1898, 1902 (Fed. Cir. 2017) may be sufficient to show an improvement in existing technology, the claims do not present either a particular sensor configuration nor a particular method of using the sensor data to generate the acoustic waves data representative of the propagated acoustic waves. Additionally, the acoustic wave generator propagating acoustic waves through a fluid in a hydrocarbon pipeline network represent mere data gathering and insignificant application and the output is recited at a high level of generality that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Thus, the generating and receiving of acoustic wave data and generation of the acoustic waves data are insignificant extra-solution activity.
In addition, the claim further presents a confirmation engine for determining the correlation but the specification describes the confirmation engine as machine readable instructions executing on a computing platform such as a desktop computer [0025]. The confirmation engine is recited at a high level of generality that at best, are the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception. The claim has additional elements. First, the claim includes limitations (a)-(b) which includes an acoustic wave generator for propagating acoustic waves through a fluid in a hydrocarbon pipeline network. Limitations (a)-(b) are well-understood, routine and conventional when expressed at this high level of generality. Such is present in acoustic reflectometry which is used to analyze pipelines which transport hydrocarbons by generating a sound pulse into a pipeline as taught by Datta et al1 [abstract, section 2.1.3 paragraph 1].
The claim also includes a processor and a confirmation engine which are configured to perform limitations (i)-(iii). The processor and confirmation engine are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. [T]he claims' invocation of a processor or instructions executing on a computing platform does not transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer or processor, or even a "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces," but merely call for performance of the claimed generate, evaluate and determine "on a set of generic computer components". Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1349-52, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6-7.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13 and 15, these are rejected substantially on the same basis as set forth hereinabove. Claim 13 further includes that the providing of the acoustic wave data is performed by an acoustic monitoring system and the determining step being performed via confirmation engine of an acoustic surveillance system. The specification describes the confirmation engine and acoustic surveillance system as machine readable instructions executing on a computing platform such as a desktop computer [0025]. Claim 15 includes determining that production performance of a well has decreased. This represents Mental Processes (i.e. observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Claim 15 further recites that the determining is performed by a processor.
These additional elements are also still recited at a high level of generality that at best, are the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Thus, the providing, evaluating and outputting steps are insignificant extra-solution activity.
These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 3-8 and 10-12, are merely just extensions or variations of the judicial exception, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity.
These claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 9, 14 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
WO 2013072685 to Mackenzie teaches that a correlation between flowrate and density exists.
CN 1207777 to Wai teaches the density of a fluid phase changes with temperature and pressure.
CN 112930019 to Lin teaches that density is determined via gas pressure.
CN 111947039 to Su teaches temperature influences fuel gas density.
CN 108871464 to Lu teaches different fluid phases have different density values.
A review on different pipeline fault detection methods to Datta et al. teaches the use of acoustic wave generators for transmitting acoustic pulses in hydrocarbon pipelines [abstract, section 2.1.3 paragraph 1]
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest either individually or in combination, determining that a correlation exists between the change in density and all of the process parameters including temperature, pressure, flowrate and fluid phase2.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the REMARKS, applicant argues in substance that 1) the claims have been amended to include “generating acoustic waves using an acoustic generator; propagating the acoustic waves through a fluid in a hydrocarbon pipeline network” which cannot be performed in the human mind; and 2) the claims have been amended to include “determine a change in fluid density…” which adds a layer of specificity and technical detail.
Referring to applicants first argument, while applicant is correct that “generating acoustic waves using an acoustic wave generator and propagating the acoustic waves through a fluid in a hydrocarbon pipeline network” is a physical process and thus not performed in the human mind, such is considered well-understood, routine and conventional when expressed at this high level of generality. As stated above, such is present in acoustic reflectometry which is used to analyze pipelines which transport hydrocarbons by generating a sound pulse into a pipeline as taught by Datta et al. See MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(C).
Referring to applicants second argument, the determining/confirming that a correlation exists between a change in density and the process parameters… amounts to the Mental Process (including observation and evaluation) group of abstract ideas. While the determining/confirming is performed by a confirmation engine, the confirmation engine is taught in the specification as machine readable instructions executing on a computing platform such as a desktop computer [0025]. The confirmation engine is recited at a high level of generality that at best, are the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
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 MARK A CONNOLLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. 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.
/MARK A CONNOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 3/3/26
1 A review on different pipeline fault detection methods; published 15 March 2016 by the Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries.
2 The determination is found in claims 1, 13 and 15 which objected claims 2, 9, 14 and 16 depend. Claims 1, 13 and 15 are not in condition for allowance due to being rejected under 35 USC 101.