DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/24/2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s arguments, it can be noted that Applicant’s arguments are primarily focused on concepts/features that are not claimed. For example, the concepts/features of “scanning, detection of newly installed equipment, generation of notifications, or initiations of tag configuration workflow” and “ongoing validations”, are not specifically and clearly recited, at least, in the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singa et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0306279 (hereinafter Singa) in view of Enemosah, Aliyu, and Joseph Chukwunweike. "Next-generation SCADA architectures for enhanced field automation and real-time remote control in oil and gas fields." Int J Comput Appl Technol Res 11.12 (2022): 514-29 (hereinafter Enemosah).
Regarding claims 1-20, the combination of Singa and Enemosah teaches all the claimed limitations.
Claim 1 and corresponding claim 11 and claim 20, Singa teaches a computer-implemented method for plant information (PI) real-time data tag automatic configuration and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC), comprising: detecting installation of a new well or piece of equipment; triggering a plant information (PI) real-time data tag configuration workflow (Para 0035 - - detect via scanning); receiving a notification of a set of one or more potential PI real-time data tags to configure, wherein the set of one or more potential PI real-time data tags are associated with the new piece of equipment (Para 0031-0033 - - polling for potential); receiving, as selected PI real-time data tags, a selection from the set of one or more potential PI real-time data tags to configure (Para 0031 - Determining incorrect tags and suitable tags); automatically configuring the selected PI real-time data tags; and periodically checking the PI real-time data tags against pre-determined standards or logic (Para 0035 and Para 0026- - SCADA server detects and validates via scanning).
Singa fails to clearly specify that the detection of installation of a new well.
However, Enemosah teaches remote control in oil wells and gas fields (see Page 514 Section labeled “1. Introduction”).
The applied prior art is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they relate to same field of endeavor. They relate to SCADA and collecting real-time data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above client server environment control system, as taught by Singa, and incorporating the concept of utilizing real-time data exchange, open standards platforms, and SCADA for purpose of associating data tags in oil well and gas field environment, as taught by Enemosah.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to enable the oil field environment with an improved RTU and field devices deployment scheme, as suggested by Enemosah (see Page 515 Section labeled “2.1 Components of legacy Scada - RTUs, PLCs, HMI, Central server”).
Regarding claims 2-10 and 12-19, Singa further teaches the claimed limitations, as outlined below:
Claim 2 and corresponding claim 12, Singa The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein detecting installation of a new well or piece of equipment is performed by a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) PI server, which scans remote terminal unit (RTU) data through one or more existing communication channels (Para 0035 - - SCADA server detects via scanning).
Claim 3 and corresponding claim 13, Singa The computer-implemented method of claim 2, comprising: retrieving scanned RTU data along with a PI real-time tag and associated configuration attributes (Para 0035 - - SCADA server detects via scanning).
Claim 4 and corresponding claim 14, Singa The computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising: automatically populating properties of the selected PI real-time data tags based on the pre-determined standards or logic (Para 0031-0033 - - automatic populating tags and using ML/rule-based).
Claim 5 and corresponding claim 15, Singa The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein automatically populating properties of the selected PI real-time data tags is performed by machine learning (ML) algorithms (Para 0031-0033 - - automatic populating tags and using ML/rule-based).
Claim 6 and corresponding claim 16, Singa The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the selected PI real-time data tags are automatically configured in a demilitarized zone (DMZ) server and corporate PI server (Para 0031-0033 - - SCADA server detects via scanning).
Claim 7 and corresponding claim 17, Singa The computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising: determining that any of properties, description, or tag mask of the PI real-time data tags fails to follow the pre-determined standards or logic (Para 0031-0033 - - determines and avoids incorrect tags).
Claim 8 and corresponding claim 18, Singa The computer-implemented method of claim 7, comprising: receiving a notification that a property, description, or tag mask of the PI real-time data tags fails to follow the pre-determined standards or logic (Para 0031-0033 - - determines and avoids incorrect tags).
Claim 9 and corresponding claim 19, Singa The computer-implemented method of claim 8, comprising: receiving a recommended correction associated with the notification (Para 0031-0033 - - determines and avoids incorrect tags).
Claim 10, Singa The computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising: performing quality assurance/quality control on the set of one or more potential PI real-time data tags to configure (Para 0031-0033 - - Quality control).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Standing et al., US Patent No. 10,204,311 relates to -configuring workflows in a host device operating in a process control system.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 CARLOS R ORTIZ RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3766. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10:00 am- 6:30 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, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CARLOS R ORTIZ RODRIGUEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights