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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this Final Rejection. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Application 18/652,463 filed 05/01/2024 is a continuation of 17/542,057 filed 12/03/2021 which claims priority to provisional application 63/120,867 filed 12/03/2020.
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 judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a method and computing device for determining if pipeline equipment will pass inspection. For Claims 1, 10 and 17 the limitations of (Claim 1 being representative):
[...] allow a user to input inspection data and equipment data pertaining to pipeline equipment of a pipeline system,
wherein said inspection data pertains to information about at least one of an inspection or an audit,
wherein said equipment data pertains to a mechanical condition of said pipeline equipment,
wherein said mechanical condition of said pipeline equipment is described in a way that is consistent with rules and regulations data,
wherein said rules and regulations data contains a plurality of rules and regulations pertaining to a minimum mechanical condition of pipeline equipment that must be maintained for said pipeline system to remain in operation,
[…] having rules and regulations data stored […],
[…] comprising one or more […] techniques,
wherein said one or more […] techniques are configured to analyze said inspection data to determine an audit pattern for said pipeline system,
wherein said one or more […] techniques are configured to analyze said inspection data and said equipment data to determine potentially non-compliant pipeline equipment,
wherein said one or more […] techniques determines which said pipeline equipment to inspect based on said audit pattern and said potentially non-compliant pipeline equipment,
[…],
[…]
[…] perform operations comprising:
receiving said equipment data […],
retrieving said rules and regulation data […],
analyzing, via said one or more […] techniques, inspection data that pertains to one or more audits of said pipeline system in order to determine said audit pattern,
determining, via said one or more […] techniques, said potentially non-compliant pipeline equipment based on said equipment data and said audit pattern,
obtaining an inspection form that is relevant to said potentially non-compliant pipeline equipment, and
transmitting a […] signal and said inspection form […],
wherein said […] signal causes […] alert said user of said potentially non-compliant pipeline equipment, as drafted, are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. The Examiner notes that “certain method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person's interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a computing device, a user interface, server or database, machine learning engine, a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable, and computer readable signal, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the computing device, a user interface, server or database, machine learning engine, a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable, and computer readable signal, this claim encompasses a person inputting inspection data, and determining if pipeline equipment is compliant or non-compliant, based on this data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, Claims 1, 10 and 17 recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 10, and 17 recites the additional elements of a computing device (Claims 1, 10, and 17), a user interface (Claims 1, 10, and 17), server or database (Claims 1, 10, and 17), machine learning engine (Claims 1, 10, and 17), machine learning techniques (Claims 1, 10, and 17), a processor (Claims 1, 10, and 17), a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Claims 1, 10, and 17), and computer readable signal (Claims 1, 10, and 17), that implements the identified abstract idea. These additional elements are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., one or more generic computers performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, 10, and 17 are directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computing device (Claims 1, 10, and 17), a user interface (Claims 1, 10, and 17), server or database (Claims 1, 10, and 17), machine learning engine (Claims 1, 10, and 17), machine learning techniques (Claims 1, 10, and 17), a processor (Claims 1, 10, and 17), a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Claims 1, 10, and 17), and computer readable signal (Claims 1, 10, and 17), to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such claims 1, 10, and 17 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims 2-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 10 and 17 as discussed above. Claim(s) 2 merely describe(s) a time period in which said pipeline will be audited based on said audit pattern. Claim(s) 3 merely describe(s) determining time period in which pipeline will be audited based on said audit pattern and equipment data and alerting a user of the time period. Claim(s) 4 & 11 merely describe(s) a compliance score for pipeline equipment using equipment data, audit pattern, and inspection data, wherein the compliance score is determined using a rate of inspection of pipeline equipment and audit pattern. Claim(s) 5 & 12 merely describe(s) determining a rate of inspection of pipeline equipment using said equipment data and inspection data and determining a compliance score for pipeline equipment using rate of inspection and audit pattern wherein the compliance score indicates a likelihood that said pipeline equipment will be inspected. Claim(s) 6, 13 & 18 merely describe(s) analyzing second equipment data, second inspection data, and second audit data of a second pipeline system to determine how to increase compliance of said pipeline system with rules and regulations. Claim(s) 7, 14, and 18 merely describe(s) analyzing second equipment data, second inspection data, second audit data of second pipeline system to determine an analysis, wherein the analysis pertains to how second pipeline system has and has not remained compliant, and analyzing the equipment data and inspection data to determine inspectable pipeline equipment wherein the inspectable pipeline equipment is pipeline equipment that is in need of inspection and determining a compliance strategy for the pipeline system based on the analysis, inspectable pipeline equipment, and rules and regulations. Claim(s) 8, 15 & 19 merely describe(s) determining fines that are relevant to said pipeline equipment using said inspection data, and determining a prioritization score based on audit pattern and said fines, wherein the prioritization score indicates which pipeline of said pipeline system should be prioritized for inspection. Claim(s) 9, 16 & 20 merely describe(s) determining fines for pipeline equipment using inspection data, determining a prioritization score for pipeline equipment using said fines and said audit pattern, wherein the score indicates which pipeline equipment should have priority for inspection or audit. Therefore claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 include the additional elements of a computing device, machine learning, processor, computer readable medium, and computer readable signal. The computing device, machine learning, processor, computer readable medium, and computer readable signal are analyzed in the same manner as the computing device, machine learning, processor, computer readable medium, and computer readable signal in the independent claims and do not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons above. Therefore, dependent claims 2-9, 11- 16 and 18-20 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Subject Matter Distinguishable from Prior Art
As previously disclosed in the Non-Final on 09/16/2025, Independent Claim 1, Claim 10, and Claim 17, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action.
Dependent Claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 would also be allowable for being subject matter free over prior art by virtue of their dependencies.
An updated search was conducted and no relevant art was found.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 with respect to the Claim Objections, have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The Claim Objections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112, have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 112 Rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “the claims encompass AI in a way that cannot practically be performed mentally are not treated as a mental process and that the claimed machine learning engine operates on large, structured technical datasets- inspection histories, mechanical condition data expressed in regulatory terms…. – to learn audit patterns, compute compliance…, and derive compliance strategies” which cannot practically be carried out in a human mind. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language, as plainly recited, does not describe the machine learning with sufficient detail to be anything more than part of the abstract idea. The additional element of the machine learning is claimed in a broad manner which treats the analysis as a black box, in which the only details are the types of data inputted and the type of output intended. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the office action states that the claim falls under the “mental processes” category of abstract idea, however, the examiner notes that the claims are instead under a separate category of “certain methods of organizing human activity”. Thus the applicant’s argument that “the claims encompass AI in a way that cannot practically be performed mentally” are not persuasive because the rejection does not rely on an assertion that the claims recite mental processes.
Applicant further argues that under Step 2A, Prong Two that the additional elements of the amended claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application, improving another technology or technical field. Applicant identifies the problem being how to predict audit behavior and compliance risk in complex pipeline networks early enough to allocate inspection resources efficiently and avoid unsafe conditions and penalties by configuring machine learning to (i) learn pipeline-specific audit patterns from prior audits, (ii) use equipment mechanical condition data and inspection histories, expressed in the same terms as regulatory rules, to identify potentially non-compliant equipment and to predict audit time periods, (iii) compute compliance scores and prioritization scores based on inspection rates, audit patterns, and fines, and (iv) perform cross-system compliance analysis to generate strategies for increasing compliance in a first pipeline system based on the experience of a second pipeline system. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements of “machine learning engine”, and the “user interface” are recited at a high level of generality and do not amount to a practical application that integrates the abstract idea into a specific technical improvement in computer functionality or another technology. The claimed features do not reflect an improvement to machine learning or user interfaces, but rather use that technology as a tool to perform the abstract analysis. Therefore the claims do not recite significantly more. Further, the problem of predicting audit behavior and compliance risk to allocate inspection resources efficiently and avoid unsafe conditions and penalties was not a problem caused by the computer/database/server/machine learning engine involved in the process. At best, the problem(s) described in the as-filed disclosure are business problems. There is no technical architecture that would amount to a practical application/significantly more, only high -level instructions of determining compliance of pipeline equipment.
Applicant further argues that the claims recite an inventive concept at Step 2B under BASCOM, and that the combination of a computing device, server, database, user interface, and machine learning engine are non-conventional architecture in the pipeline field. However, these arguments are not persuasive because the rejection does not rely on a finding that the claimed elements or their combination are well-understood, routine or conventional, and instead solely relies on the fact that the combination of elements are no more than “apply it” level elements. Furthermore, the additional elements of the computer/database/server/user interface/machine learning engine do not provide a specific improvement in improving the functionalities of the computer, and does not provide a specific technique to improve the machine learning engine. Furthermore, the reasons that made BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. V. AT&T mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) do not apply to the present claims. MPEP 2106.05(f) states, "In BASCOM, the court determined that the claimed combination of limitations did not simply recite an instruction to apply the abstract idea of filtering content on the Internet. BASCOM Global Internet Servs. V. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, the claim recited a "technology based solution" of filtering content on the Internet that overcome the disadvantages of prior art filtering systems. 827 F.3d at 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d at 1243." While the examiner acknowledges the applicants comparison of BASCOM to the present claims, the examiner notes the following distinctions between BASCOM and the present claims. Firstly, in BASCOM, the claims were specifically limited to filtering content on the Internet as part of the abstract idea, which contrasts from the present claims which are clearly "managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people." Secondly, in BASCOM the claims found a non-generic arrangement of the installation of the filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. However, the present claims provide broadly a user interface, server or database, and machine learning which are recited broadly enough that they merely describe the use of generic computers and ordinary devices to perform the certain methods of organizing human activity, but do not describe the arrangement of elements to a level of specificity that meaningfully limits its use on the abstract idea. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive, and the 101 rejections stands.
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 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 Emily M Kraisinger whose telephone number is (703)756-4583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM -4:30 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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/E.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626