DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is responsive to Applicant's reply filed 12/17/2025.
No amendments were submitted.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
Examiner notes
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
The Examiner notes that the 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 103 rejections have been applied in light of the numerous 35 USC 112 rejections listed below and broadest reasonable interpretation.
Priority
This application claims priority of PCT Application PCT/IB2021/062072 filed on 12/21/2021. Applicant's claim for the benefit of this prior-filed application is acknowledged.
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 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 101 rejection the Applicant states “These algorithms and models have been previously validated in numerous scientific and industrial sources, and it is not necessary to elaborate further on them in this invention”. Applicant’s claims recite generic use of machine learning that is recited at such a high level of generality that it merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s claimed structural components appear to be general purpose computer components, but it is hard to tell with how many antecedent basis issues there are. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner has clearly pointed out the limitations directed towards the abstract idea, what the additional elements are and why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and why the additional elements and remaining limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In Applicant’s arguments the Applicant provides definitions, but that does not correct the 112 issues and the definitions are not cited from the originally filed specification. The Examiner has examined these claims under broadest reasonable interpretation and applied the rejections to the best of his ability. The Examiner refers to the rejection below. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, the Examiner has applied the prior art rejection to the best of his ability in light of the 35 USC 112 rejections and broadest reasonable interpretation. It seems the Applicant has a much narrower view on the invention, but that is not what is claimed. For example, Applicant’s claims recite “in oil and gas industry tanks”. There are no details recited regarding the oil and gas industry tanks beyond that. That statement is merely a use statement. Please see the rejection below for more motivation to combine. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant then compares the two cited prior art references making opinions about how they would be used, but does not analyze how they can be used. Applicant narrowly focuses on certain aspects of the cited prior art and does not take into consideration broadest reasonable interpretation. The Examiner has clearly shown how each limitations is taught by the cited prior art and provided the necessary motivation to combine. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant goes through each claim and argues features that are not claimed. The Examiner refers to the rejection below. The Applicant does not cite the claims and it is not even clear what Applicant is arguing. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
The claims are generally narrative and unclear, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 1-14: Claim 1 recites “at least one artificial intelligence structure to review and analyze the information received and analyze the results of the server simulation system and help make the final decision or decision to generate a new protocol, as well as to create virtual events and generate new protocols and simulate and determine the results of its implementation”. Applicant merely provides a black box (artificial intelligence structure) for performing that determination. Applicant’s specification provides no details as to what the artificial intelligence structure actually is or how it generates new protocols or runs simulations. Looking at Figure 1 it appears to be labelled as “Intellectual Property” (e.g. a black box). The lack of written description makes the claims rejected under 35 USC 112a.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Regarding Claims 1-14: Claims 1-14 recite “the invention system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 2: Claim 2 recites “a system”. It is unclear to the Examiner if this system is the same system recited in claim 1 or a new system as there is antecedent basis issues. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claims 4-5, 7, and 10-11: Claims 4-5, 7, and 10-11 recite “the accident”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 7: Claim 7 recites “reviewing instantaneous variable parameters in developing the accident and 2D and 3D analysis of risk before occurring the same is one of important part of this invention”. It is unclear to the Examiner what the 2D and 3D analysis of risk actually entails. Is this supposed to refer to vector space? The claim is unclear and indefinite due to lack of clarity and rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 9: Claim 9 recites “the safety operation mode”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claims 13-14: Claims 13-14 recite “the possibility”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 14: Claim 14 recites “the best”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In the instant case (Step 1), claims 1-14 are directed toward a system; which are statutory categories of invention.
Additionally (Step 2A Prong One), the independent claims are directed toward a system for making risk reduction protocol in oil and gas industry tanks includes at least one data collection structure for environmental sensors and equipment sensors and at least one system for collecting and processing images of ambient cameras and cameras mounted on or inside the equipment to collect image information and at least one processor wire for data analysis of sensors and cameras, and at least one database for maintaining information and maintaining risk reduction protocols, and at least one separate system for processing protocols and simulating events and risk reduction protocols for decision making and at least one artificial intelligence structure to review and analyze the information received and analyze the results of the server simulation system and help make the final decision or decision to generate a new protocol, as well as to create virtual events and generate new protocols and simulate and determine the results of its implementation (Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106). The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are analyzing sensor and camera data to determine risk reduction protocols and then simulating certain aspects to help a human make a decision about potential new protocols for risk reduction, where risk management is a commercial interaction. The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Mental Processes because the claimed limitations are analyzing sensor and camera data to determine risk reduction protocols and then simulating certain aspects to help a human make a decision about potential new protocols for risk reduction, which can be done in the human mind.
Dependent claims 2-14 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, where any additional elements introduced are discussed below.
Step 2A Prong Two: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the independent claims additionally recite “a system for; includes at least one data collection structure for environmental sensors and equipment sensors and at least one system for collecting and processing images of ambient cameras and cameras mounted on or inside the equipment to collect image information and at least one processor wire for data analysis of sensors and cameras, and at least one database for maintaining information and maintaining risk reduction protocols, and at least one separate system for; and at least one artificial intelligence structure to (claim 1)” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106) and are recited at such a high level of generality. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computer or other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology.
In addition, dependent claims 2-14 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 2 and 5 additionally recite “a system (claim 2)”; “artificial intelligence (claim 5)” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106). Further, System claims 1-14 recite “a system for; includes at least one data collection structure for environmental sensors and equipment sensors and at least one system for collecting and processing images of ambient cameras and cameras mounted on or inside the equipment to collect image information and at least one processor wire for data analysis of sensors and cameras, and at least one database for maintaining information and maintaining risk reduction protocols, and at least one separate system for; and at least one artificial intelligence structure to (claim 1)”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0015 and 0017 and Figures 1. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2-14 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and present no additional elements that provide significantly more. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 2 and 5 additionally recite “a system (claim 2)”; “artificial intelligence (claim 5)” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abhulimen (US 2012/0317058 A1) in view of Geylani (US 2020/0234379 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Abhulimen teach an invention system for making risk reduction protocol in oil and gas industry tanks (See Paragraph 0113, Paragraph 0128, Paragraph 0285, Paragraph 0374, and Paragraphs 1228-1230);
includes at least one data collection structure for environmental sensors and equipment sensors and at least one processor wire for data analysis of sensors (See Paragraph 0075, Paragraph 0444, and Paragraph 0462);
and at least one database for maintaining information and maintaining risk reduction protocols (See Paragraph 0072, Paragraph 0128, Paragraph 0143, and Paragraph 0443);
and at least one separate system for processing protocols and simulating events and risk reduction protocols for decision making (See Paragraphs 0273-0274, Paragraph 0366, Paragraph 0399, and Paragraph 0450);
and at least one artificial intelligence structure to review and analyze the information received and analyze the results of the server simulation system and help make the final decision or decision to generate a new protocol, as well as to create virtual events and generate new protocols and simulate and determine the results of its implementation (See Paragraphs 0273-0274, Paragraph 0366, Paragraph 0399, Paragraph 0450, Paragraph 0462, and Paragraph 0475).
Abhulimen does not specifically disclose at least one system for collecting and processing images of ambient cameras and cameras mounted on or inside the equipment to collect image information. However, Geylani further teaches at least one system for collecting and processing images of ambient cameras and cameras mounted on or inside the equipment to collect image information (See Paragraph 0051, Paragraph 0066, and Paragraph 0071).
The teachings of Abhulimen and Geylani are related because both are analyzing risk in systems to make adjustments. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the risk analysis system of Abhulimen to incorporate the cameras of Geylani in order to ensure the visual risks are being analyzed properly.
Regarding Claim 2: Abhulimen in view of Geylani teach the limitations of claim 1. Abhulimen further teaches in which there is a system for implementing the risk reduction protocol in the server and analyzing the results of the implementation of the protocol before sending orders to different parts of the plant, which can check and analyze the protocols in the database at the time of risk and can implement the proposed and built-in new protocols in the present invention virtually and analyze the results (See Paragraphs 0273-0274, Paragraph 0366, Paragraph 0399, Paragraph 0450, Paragraph 0462, Paragraph 0475, Paragraph 0710, and claim 5).
Regarding Claim 3: Abhulimen in view of Geylani teach the limitations of claim 1. Abhulimen further teaches which in the risk management section, after implementing the protocols in the system database and their ineffectiveness or lack of acceptable risk reduction based on the defined elements, can define a chain of actions one after another in a way that results in creating a new protocol (See Paragraph 0159, Paragraphs 0273-0274, Paragraph 0366, Paragraph 0399, Paragraph 0450, Paragraph 0462, Paragraph 0475, Paragraph 0710, and claim 5).
Regarding Claim 4: Abhulimen in view of Geylani teach the limitations of claim 1. Abhulimen further teaches which can diagnose, analyze and evaluate the risk before the accident (See Paragraphs 0273-0274, Paragraph 0366, Paragraph 0399, and Paragraph 0450).
Regarding Claim 5: Abhulimen in view of Geylani teach the limitations of claim 1. Abhulimen further teaches in which artificial intelligence can act as risk reduction management at the time of the accident and reduce human errors (See Paragraph 0159, Paragraphs 0273-0274, Paragraph 0366, Paragraph 0399, Paragraph 0450, Paragraph 0462, Paragraph 0475, Paragraph 0710, and claim 5).
Regarding Claim 6: Abhulimen in view of Geylani teach the limitations of claim 1. Abhulimen further teaches in which prediction of risk and its probable effects by simulator and preventing secondary risks in safety operation of tanks is provided (See Paragraph 0113, Paragraph 0128, Paragraph 0285, Paragraph 0374, Paragraph 0450, Paragraph 0462, Paragraph 0475, and Paragraphs 1228-1230).
Regarding Claim 7: Abhulimen in view of Geylani teach the limitations of claim 1. Abhulimen further teaches in which reviewing instantaneous variable parameters in developing the accident and 2D and 3D analysis of risk before occurring the same is one of important part of this invention (See Paragraph 0072, Paragraph 0128, Paragraph 0143, and Paragraph 0443).
Regarding Claim 8: Abhulimen in view of Geylani teach the limitations of claim 1. Abhulimen further teaches in which calculation of risk and selection of scenario for continuously risk reduction until controlling and removing the risk and registering the required action for compensating the probable effects till removing the risk is from features of this invention (See Paragraph 0159, Paragraphs 0273-0274, Paragraph 0366, Paragraph 0399, Paragraph 0450, Paragraph 0462, Paragraph 0475, Paragraph 0710, and claim 5).
Regarding Claim 9: Abhulimen in view of Geylani teach the limitations of claim 1. Abhulimen further teaches in which risk management and selection of scenario for removing secondary risks by analyzing the simulator and artificial intelligence and bringing the tanks to the safety operation mode is from features of this invention (See Paragraphs 0273-0274, Paragraph 0366, Paragraph 0399, Paragraph 0450, Paragraph 0462, Paragraph 0475, Paragraph 0710, and claim 5).
Regarding Claim 10: Abhulimen in view of Geylani teach the limitations of claim 1. Abhulimen further teaches in which guidance and management of human resources before the accident for preserving the individuals life is from features of this invention (See Paragraphs 0273-0274, Paragraph 0366, Paragraph 0399, Paragraph 0450, Paragraph 0462, Paragraph 0475, Paragraph 0710, and claim 5).
Regarding Claim 11: Abhulimen in view of Geylani teach the limitations of claim 1. Abhulimen further teaches in which management of equipments, resources and process and tanks for safety and preserving asset before accident is from features of this invention (See Paragraphs 0273-0274, Paragraph 0366, Paragraph 0399, Paragraph 0450, Paragraph 0462, Paragraph 0475, Paragraph 0710, and claim 5).
Regarding Claim 12: Abhulimen in view of Geylani teach the limitations of claim 1. Abhulimen further teaches in which making selected scenario or combinations of scenarios for reduction of high risks to neutral or safe area is from features of this invention (See Paragraphs 0273-0274, Paragraph 0366, Paragraph 0399, and Paragraph 0450).
Regarding Claim 13: Abhulimen in view of Geylani teach the limitations of claim 1. Abhulimen further teaches in which the possibility to send the operational scenarios through risk management unit to central controlling system and receiving process operation response for risk management is from features of this invention (See Paragraphs 0273-0274, Paragraph 0366, Paragraph 0399, Paragraph 0450, Paragraph 0462, Paragraph 0475, Paragraph 0710, and claim 5).
Regarding Claim 14: Abhulimen in view of Geylani teach the limitations of claim 1. Abhulimen further teaches in which the possibility to simultaneously analyze the different scenarios based on the various parameters and selecting and making the best scenario and analyzing it for reduction of risk is from features of this invention so in case of leakage in the tanks and chemical contaminations and explosion thereof simultaneously, analyze the effects of different scenarios and select the best operation for reduction of risk (See Paragraphs 0273-0274, Paragraph 0366, Paragraph 0399, Paragraph 0450, Paragraph 0462, Paragraph 0475, Paragraph 0710, and claim 5).
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.
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0504. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM.
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.
/MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625