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
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 1-20 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.
As to claim 13, the claim recites “A system for calibrating measured data, comprising:
a storage configured to store instructions;
a processor configured to execute the instructions and cause the processor to:
analyze a plurality of tickets that identify modification of a plurality of equipment installed and configured at a facility, wherein each ticket identifies at least one of an installation of a first equipment, removal of the first equipment, or testing of the first equipment;
generate a plurality of runs associated with an operation of the facility based on the plurality of tickets, wherein a run of the plurality of runs identifies an equipment configuration, a start time, and an end time; and
mapping measurement data from the plurality of equipment based on the equipment configuration of the run into time series data.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by 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. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process for claim 1, and apparatus for claim 13).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions).
In claim 1, the step of “analyze a plurality of tickets that identify modification of a plurality of equipment installed and configured at a facility, wherein each ticket identifies at least one of an installation of a first equipment, removal of the first equipment, or testing of the first equipment” is a combination of a mathematical concept and a mental process, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea.
The steps of “analyze a plurality of tickets that identify modification of a plurality of equipment installed and configured at a facility, wherein each ticket identifies at least one of an installation of a first equipment, removal of the first equipment, or testing of the first equipment”; and
“generate a plurality of runs associated with an operation of the facility based on the plurality of tickets, wherein a run of the plurality of runs identifies an equipment configuration, a start time, and an end time; and
mapping measurement data from the plurality of equipment based on the equipment configuration of the run into time series data” are a mathematical concept, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
a storage configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions.
The additional elements “a storage configured to store instructions”; and “a processor configured to execute the instructions” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. In addition, a generic processor is generally recited and therefore, not qualified as a particular machine.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 1 recites subject matter that is similar or analogous to that of claim 13, and therefore, the claim is also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-12 and 14-20 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
Claims 1, 4, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuko et al. (US 20170185971, hereinafter Masuko) in view of Kroslid et al. (US 20200291767, hereinafter Kroslid).
As to claims 1 and 13, Masuko teaches a storage configured to store instructions (FIG. 2 and [0048] disclose a program is stored in a storage 513);
a processor configured to execute the instructions (FIG. 2 and [0048] disclose a CPU in the controller 512 executes the program) and cause the processor to:
analyze a plurality of tickets that identify modification of a plurality of equipment installed and configured at a facility wherein each ticket identifies at least one of an installation of a first equipment, removal of the first equipment, or testing of the first equipment ([0018] discloses a facility maintenance method may include a fault tree determination step of determining whether an event having occurred in a facility falls within a fault tree indicating known causes of occurrence of events in equipment/material in the facility (i.e., analyze a plurality of tickets - emphasis added by Examiner); a fault tree update step of in a case where the event is determined to fall outside the fault tree, updating the fault tree such that a cause of occurrence of the event identified through investigation is reflected (i.e., the event ticket identifies modification of a plurality of equipment - emphasis added by Examiner). Identifying a location where a structural element of the equipment/material identified to relate to the cause of occurrence of the event is used, based on installation information indicating a location where the equipment/material is installed (i.e., event ticket identifies installation of an equipment - emphasis added by Examiner); [0042] discloses the equipment/material is collected because of partial removal of the electric power facility or replacement of the equipment/material (i.e., event ticket identifies removal of the equipment - emphasis added by Examiner); [0108] discloses ”The investigation for identifying the cause of occurrence of the failure here includes maintenance worker's work for inspecting the physical state to identify the cause by, for example, disassembling the actual equipment/material to be inspected (i.e., event ticket identifies testing of the equipment - emphasis added by Examiner).”).
Masuko does not explicitly teach generate a plurality of runs associated with an operation of the facility based on the plurality of tickets, wherein a run of the plurality of runs identifies an equipment configuration, a start time, and an end time; and mapping measurement data from the plurality of equipment based on the equipment configuration of the run into time series data.
Kroslid teaches generate a plurality of runs associated with an operation of the facility based on the plurality of tickets, wherein a run of the plurality of runs identifies an equipment configuration, a start time, and an end time ([0095] and [0097] disclose
the condition indicators may be indicative of average speed or maximum speed of a corresponding actuator or component of the piece of equipment during a corresponding action (i.e., a run or a plurality of runs, associated with the plurality of actions or tickets, identifies an equipment configuration - emphasis added by Examiner). Operating a piece of equipment at an oil and gas wellsite by: performing a plurality actions by a component of the piece of equipment; and generating a plurality of sensor measurements, wherein each sensor measurement is indicative of a corresponding action (i.e., generate a plurality of runs associated with an operation of the facility based on the plurality of actions or tickets, and identifies an equipment configuration -emphasis added by Examiner). Calculating a condition indicator for each component based on a corresponding sensor measurement; recording each condition indicator over a period of time; and determining condition of the piece of equipment based on at least one of the condition indicators recorded over time (i.e., the oil and gas equipment condition indicators recorded over time would include a start time, and an end time of plurality of runs associated with an operation of an oil and gas wellsite or facility - emphasis added by Examiner)); and
mapping measurement data from the plurality of equipment based on the equipment configuration of the run into time series data ([0087] and [0106] disclose a
the condition indicators may be indicative of average speed or maximum speed of an actuator 406 or component 408 of the piece of equipment 402 (i.e., the equipment configuration - emphasis added by Examiner) facilitating a corresponding action. Plurality of actuators or components each operable to facilitate a corresponding action by a component of the piece of equipment; and a plurality of sensors each operable to generate a signal indicative of an operational parameter associated with a corresponding action, and sensor data indicative of performance of each individual actuator or component. Generate a condition indicator for each action based on a corresponding signal, record each condition indicator over a period of time, determine condition of the piece of equipment based on at least one of the condition indicators recorded over time (i.e., mapping measurement data from the plurality of equipment based on the equipment configuration of the run into time series data - emphasis added by Examiner)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kroslid into Masuko for the purpose of monitoring equipment condition indicators for changes in order to identify future faults, failures, breakdowns, and other maintenance problems associated with equipment. This combination would improve in accurately forecasting equipment faults so that the equipment faults can be repaired or addressed before failure or large reductions in performance can manifest.
As to claims 4 and 16, the combination of Masuko and Kroslid teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claims 1 and 13, respectively.
Masuko does not explicitly teach wherein each run in the plurality of runs represents a distinct duration of time.
Kroslid teaches wherein each run in the plurality of runs represents a distinct duration of time ([0069] and [0088] disclose each of a plurality of sensors 412 generates sensor data (e.g. sensor signals, measurements) indicative of physical status (i.e., operational status) caused by the corresponding plurality of actuators 406 and/or experienced by the component 408. A condition indicator for each sensor is generated based on a corresponding sensor measurement, record each condition indicator over a period of time, and determine condition of the piece of equipment based on at least one of the condition indicators recorded over time (i.e., each condition indicator corresponds to a physical or operational status or run of the components, and each condition indicator is recorded over a period of time - emphasis added by Examiner)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kroslid into Masuko for the purpose of monitoring equipment condition indicators for changes in order to identify future faults, failures, breakdowns, and other maintenance problems associated with equipment. This combination would improve in accurately forecasting equipment faults so that the equipment faults can be repaired or addressed before failure or large reductions in performance can manifest.
Claims 2-3 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuko and Kroslid, in view of Hartmann et al. (US 20090177404, hereinafter Hartmann).
As to claims 2 and 14, the combination of Masuko and Kroslid teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claims 1 and 13, respectively.
The combination of Masuko and Kroslid does not explicitly teach the time series data is provided to a machine learning model for training operations.
Hartmann teaches wherein the time series data is provided to a machine learning model for training operations ([0022] and [0034] disclose formation evaluation data, imaging system data, and logging data are provided to a machine learning; and
an image data comprises time or depth measured by an internal clock on the BHA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hartmann into Masuko in view of Kroslid for the purpose of creating new rules using machine learning by tracking acquisition system data and field service engineer corrective actions during imaging operations. This combination would improve in providing a compensated azimuthal geosteering density so that the images are available in real time, and thus, avoiding lower resolution image data.
As to claims 3 and 15, the combination of Masuko, Kroslid, and Hartmann teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claims 2 and 14, respectively.
The combination of Masuko and Kroslid does not explicitly teach wherein the machine learning model is trained to infer an adverse condition associated with the facility or the plurality of equipment of the facility and a response to mitigate the adverse condition
Hartmann teaches wherein the machine learning model is trained to infer an adverse condition associated with the facility or the plurality of equipment of the facility and a response to mitigate the adverse condition ([0004], [0022] and [0023] disclose formation evaluation data, imaging system data, and logging data are provided to a machine learning; and the computer program further comprising instructions to provide corrective action to adjust system time and image quality indicated by the acquisition quality indicator (i.e., the machine learning model is trained to infer an adverse condition associated with the drillstring or plurality of components or equipment of an oil and gas well driller - emphasis added by Examiner)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hartmann into Masuko in view of Kroslid for the purpose of creating new rules using machine learning by tracking acquisition system data and field service engineer corrective actions during imaging operations. This combination would improve in providing a compensated azimuthal geosteering density so that the images are available in real time, and thus, avoiding lower resolution image data.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuko and Kroslid, in view of Luciani (US 20160033990, hereinafter Luciani).
As to claim 11, the combination of Masuko and Kroslid teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 1.
The combination of Masuko and Kroslid does not explicitly teach determining a time offset associated with first measurement data of the first equipment; and correcting timestamps of the first measurement data of the first equipment based on the time offset.
Luciani teaches determining a time offset associated with first measurement data of the first equipment (Claim 1 discloses the control component in the second device operative calculates a time offset for the time-stamped monitored event data comprising the difference between the time provided by the RTC in the data collection device and the time provided by the RTC in the second device, and associate the time offset with the time-stamped monitored event data (i.e., determining a time offset associated with measurement data of equipment - emphasis added by Examiner); and the control component in the second device operative to provide the time-stamped monitored event data and the time offset as an output for utilization)); and
correcting timestamps of the first measurement data of the first equipment based on the time offset ([0034] discloses the time offset is applied to some or all of the event data sets transferred to the other components (i.e., measurement data of equipment - emphasis added by Examiner) of the present system and the time corrected event data set(s) are transferred to other components of the system. The receiving component of the system calibrates and correlates the relative time to the correct absolute time and modifies the relative time associated with all of the transferred event data sets (i.e., correcting timestamps of the measurement data of the equipment based on the time offset - emphasis added by Examiner)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Luciani into Masuko in view of Kroslid for the purpose of creating of synchronized time-stamped events in order to correlate disturbance events, errors, and malfunctions in electrical systems which can be valuable in trouble shooting system problems. This combination would improve in providing valuable information as to when events occur in order to correlate this event with an effect on another entity, e.g. a monitoring or control entity and its associated equipment.
As to claim 12, the combination of Masuko, Kroslid, and Luciani teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 11.
The combination of Masuko and Kroslid does not explicitly teach determining a time offset associated with first measurement data of the first equipment; and correcting timestamps of the first measurement data of the first equipment based on the time offset.
Luciani teaches determine the time offset based on the measurement data of the plurality of equipment ([0034] and Claim 10 disclose the time offset is applied to some or all of the event data sets transferred to the other components of the present system and the time corrected event data set(s) are transferred to other components of the system (i.e., measurement data of the plurality of equipment - emphasis added by Examiner)). Calculating a time offset for the time stamped monitored event data comprising the difference between the time provided by RTC in the data collection device and the time provided by the second RTC in the second device, and associating the time offset with the time-stamped monitored event data (i.e., determine the time offset based on measurement data of the plurality of equipment - emphasis added by Examiner)).
Examiner' s Note
Regarding Claims 5-10, and 17-20, the most pertinent prior arts are “"Masuko US 20170185971", "Kroslid US 20200291767", "Hartmann US 20090177404", "Luciani US 20160033990", "Husain US 20220077878", and “Gao US 20210222552”.
As to claims 5 and 17, Husain teaches determining a portion of the measurement data of a first equipment is missing (Husain, [0071]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “in response to receiving the measurement data of the offline equipment, inserting the measurement data into the time series data” including all limitations as claimed.
As to claim 9, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “determining a common interval based on a measurement interval associated with each equipment in the equipment configuration”; and
“interpolating at least a portion of the measurement data based on the common interval to at least partially normalize each run” including all limitations as claimed.
As to claim 10, Gao teaches retrieving the plurality of tickets from a ticket database, wherein the ticket database identifies a change to at least one equipment at the facility (Gao, [0045], [0092]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “sorting the plurality of tickets based on a time associated with each ticket of the plurality of tickets, wherein each a start of a run is associated with a first ticket and an end of the run is associated with a second ticket that is next in time to the first ticket” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 6-8 and 18-20 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 5 and 17.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Santoro US 20170169058” teaches “A real-time transaction processing system and method include the provision of a real-time transactional data store having an importer subsystem embedded therein. The importer subsystem is configured to connect directly to a real-time data source without using an intermediate subsystem. Events are received via the real-time data source at the importer subsystem, which transacts the events into the real-time transactional data store to create one or more records in the real-time transactional data store corresponding to the events.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:00-12:00, 1:00-5:00 EST.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2863