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
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-7 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a method for hydraulic leak detection in unmanned locations, the method comprises: obtaining a first pressure reading; determining if the first pressure reading is less than a low-level threshold; starting a header pressure pump when the first pressure reading is less than the low-level threshold; determining if one or more production valves was opened; obtaining a second pressure reading; determining if the second pressure reading is greater than a high-level threshold; terminating operation of the header pressure pump when the second pressure reading is greater than the high-level threshold; incrementing a pump counter by one after terminating operation of the header pressure pump; determining if the pump counter is greater than a pump cycle threshold; storing a first snapshot of a fluid level when the pump counter is greater than the pump cycle threshold; starting a predetermined time interval following storing the first snapshot; storing a second snapshot of the fluid level following expiration of the predetermined time interval; calculating a difference of the second snapshot from the first snapshot; determining if the difference is greater than an allowable leak threshold; initiating an alarm when the difference is greater than the allowable leak threshold; and resetting the pump counter at a specific time of day.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of determining if the first pressure reading is less than a low-level threshold. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining if the first pressure reading is less than a low-level threshold can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of determining if one or more production valves was opened. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining if one or more production valves was opened can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of determining if the second pressure reading is greater than a high-level threshold. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining if the second pressure reading is greater than a high-level threshold can be done by a human or pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of determining if the pump counter is greater than a pump cycle threshold. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining if the pump counter is greater than a pump cycle threshold can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of calculating a difference of the second snapshot from the first snapshot. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating a difference of the second snapshot from the first snapshot can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of determining if the difference is greater than an allowable leak threshold. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining if the difference is greater than an allowable leak threshold can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use: starting a header pressure pump when the first pressure reading is less than the low-level threshold; terminating operation of the header pressure pump when the second pressure reading is greater than the high-level threshold; incrementing a pump counter by one after terminating operation of the header pressure pump; starting a predetermined time interval following storing the first snapshot; initiating an alarm when the difference is greater than the allowable leak threshold; and resetting the pump counter at a specific time of day.
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of detecting a hydraulic leak. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of detecting a hydraulic leak without significantly more.
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: obtaining a first pressure reading; determining if the first pressure reading is less than a low-level threshold; obtaining a second pressure reading; storing a first snapshot of a fluid level when the pump counter is greater than the pump cycle threshold; storing a second snapshot of the fluid level following expiration of the predetermined time interval
The additional elements of obtaining and storing data do not add significantly more and are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity, because they are mere data gathering activities. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 is 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. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the low-level threshold is 4000 pounds per square inch (PSI).”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 3 is 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. Claim 3 depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the high-level threshold is 7000 PSI.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 4 is 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. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the predetermined time interval is one hour.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 5 is 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. Claim 5 depends claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the specific time of day is set at midnight.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 6 is 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. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the allowable leak threshold is one quart of a hydraulic fluid.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 7 is 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. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “… allying a pump cycle count; determining a hydraulic leak has occurred where one or more connectors are operatively connected within a closed hydraulic system; and initiating the alarm.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitation of claim 8,
“… wherein the header pressure pump is operatively connected to the closed hydraulic system and is configured to maintain a header pressure within the closed hydraulic system; … wherein the pump counter is configured to increase by one when the header pressure pump stops operation; …”
Claims 9-14 are also allowable due to their dependence on claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20140123747 A1; Veeningen; Daniel Marco are systems and methods for conducting pressure tests on a wellbore fluid containment system.
US 9909948 B1; Stewart; Trent Lecon is a Leak detection system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858