DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 30 January 2026.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending and have been examined.
This action has been made FINAL.
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 30 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “The Office Action characterizes the previously pending claims as being directed to "managing personal behavior, including following rules or instructions." Applicant respectfully submits that, when currently amended Independent Claim 1 is read as a whole, it is not directed to managing personal behavior as a fundamental practice or organizational concept. Rather, currently amended Independent Claim 1 is directed to a technical pipeline-inspection and compliance management system that operates on data structures tied to physical pipeline equipment and pipeline profiles, and that uses geospatial data and a GIS to identify and present the relevant physical pipeline system and associated pipeline profile in a field-operable user interface. The claim's "rules and regulations" are not claimed as rules for human conduct in the abstract; they are stored, pipeline-domain constraints used by the system to determine inspection deadlines, inspector qualification, and equipment non-compliance for the physical pipeline equipment. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that currently amended Independent Claim 1 is directed to a technological process in the pipeline-inspection domain, not to an abstract method of organizing human activity”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Initially, it is noted that just because the ‘rules and regulations’ are stored and used to determine deadlines, qualifications, and equipment non-compliance does not make them any less abstract. The use of rules to determine if regulations and laws are being followed is a method of organizing human activity, such as following rules and a fundamental economic activity, since a business following rules and regulations is fundamental.
Further, the type of data used, or the fact that the pipeline is a physical structure, does not make the claim limitations any less abstract, as the limitations use data that represents said pipelines, and merely analyzes and displays the data.
Further, the mere recitation of technical components (e.g., a computer, a non-transitory computer-readable medium) does not take the limitations out of the realm of abstract ideas.
Applicant argues “Additionally, currently amended Independent Claim I limitations are not merely mental processes. The claim requires receiving geospatial data from a geolocation device, determining the relevant physical pipeline system based on that geospatial data, and presenting a pipeline profile within a GIS based on that geospatial data. These steps are tied to the use of geospatial/GIS computing and cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Further, currently amended Independent Claim 1 requires automated generation and transmission of inspection forms, inspection reports, and computer-readable alert signals based on comparisons of inspection/equipment data to stored rules-and- regulations data. These are computer-implemented, pipeline-specific operations performed on structured datasets associated with physical pipeline equipment and are not merely the type of observations or judgments a human could practically perform without the claimed computing environment”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is noted that the claims were not rejected as being directed to mental processes. However, it is further noted that the transmission of documents and alerts, or that the data is stored in datasets, does not take the limitations out of the realm of abstract ideas.
Applicant argues “Step 2A, Prong Two (Practical Application). Even if any portion of currently amended Independent Claim 1 were considered to "involve" an abstract idea, Applicant respectfully submits that the additional elements integrate any such idea into a practical application. Currently amended Claim 1 recites a particular way of using (a) a geolocation device and geospatial data, (b) a GIS-based user interface, and ( c) pipeline profiles stored in a server/database that also stores employee data and rules-and-regulations data, to carry out a pipeline-equipment inspection-compliance workflow that produces concrete, real-world effects: equipment-specific inspection forms are delivered to qualified users, non-compliant equipment is identified based on stored regulatory constraints, and inspection reports and alerts are generated for the non-compliant physical pipeline equipment.
The specification explains this pipeline-domain configuration in technical detail. For example, the specification describes storing rules-and-regulations data and using that data to determine whether pipeline equipment has been inspected within a regulated time period and whether an employee is qualified to inspect a particular piece of pipeline equipment, and then alerting the user accordingly. The specification also describes storing equipment data and inspection data in pipeline profiles, retrieving equipment data and rules-and-regulations data, retrieving and presenting inspection forms, and saving and synchronizing inspection reports/inspection data as part of monitoring pipeline equipment. The specification further explains that geospatial data from a geolocation device may be used in a GIS environment to query and display layers on a map, which supports identification and selection of pipeline equipment in the field. Applicant respectfully submits that these disclosures reflect a technological solution to a technological problem in pipeline inspection and compliance management-accurately identifying the relevant physical pipeline assets and automating qualified inspection and compliance reporting to reduce missed inspections, non-compliance, and safety risk.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While Applicant argues that the type of data and how the data is used amounts to a technical improvement, and the fact that the invention allegedly “produces concrete, real-world effects” does not amount to significantly more or a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05 I.A.- “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2B. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception is not in itself an inventive concept and does not guarantee eligibility”
Further, the mere use of data collected by known sensors, geolocation devices, and displays does not amount to significantly more, as these amount mere data gathering, outputting, and storing, and are either insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), or generic computer hardware, recited at a high level of generality, used as a tool to perform generic computer functions, and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Applicant argues “ Currently amended Independent Claim 1 is directed to the technical problem of inspection and compliance management for physical pipeline equipment using a GIS/geolocation-driven pipeline-profile architecture, including qualification gating and automated generation of inspection forms, reports, and alerts for non-compliance. While other claims and embodiments additionally address remote physical control of pipeline equipment using solenoid valves, the inspection/compliance improvements recited in currently amended Independent Claim I stand on their own as a practical application in a technical field and are not merely a disembodied business practice”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Automating process does not make the processes any less abstract, and the fact that generic computer hardware is used to perform the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application. The claimed invention is used to determine if pipelines have been inspected in view of existing laws, rules, and regulations, which is an abstract idea, as it encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. Again, the fact that the pipelines are physical, does not make the concept of following rules and regulations in respect to laws, rules, and regulations any less abstract.
Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully submits that the ordered combination of elements in currently amended Independent Claim I provides an inventive concept because it recites a specific, location-aware GIS pipeline-inspection architecture and workflow that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the relevant field. In particular, amended claim I recites an ordered set of interrelated operations that cooperatively achieve a technical result in the pipeline-inspection domain, including: (i) receiving geospatial data from a geolocation device; (ii) using that geospatial data to determine and present the relevant physical pipeline system to a user within a GIS of the user interface; (iii) retrieving a pipeline profile relevant to that physical pipeline system, wherein the pipeline profile contains inspection data and equipment data for pipeline equipment of the pipeline system; (iv) retrieving employee data and rules-and-regulations data from the server/database; (v) determining whether the user is qualified to inspect selected pipeline equipment based on the rules-and-regulations data, the employee data, and inspection context input; (vi) conditionally sending an inspection form relevant to the selected pipeline equipment upon determining that the user is qualified; and (vii) after receiving a completed inspection form, comparing the equipment data and inspection data to the rules-and-regulations data to determine noncompliance, generating an inspection report for non-compliant pipeline equipment, and sending a computer-readable signal to alert the user of noncompliance”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is noted that none of the features argued above produce a technical result; sending an alert is not a technical improvement or technical result, as the merely transmitting data using conventional systems (as evidenced by Applicant’s specification), does not amount to an inventive concept under Step 2B. The mere collection and analysis of intangible data, and the presenting the results of the analysis, without more (such
as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See Electric Power Group v Alstom S.A. No. 2015-1778 (Fed. Cir. 1 August 2016) (“The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools”… “ More particularly, a large portion of the lengthy claims is devoted to enumerating types of information and information sources available within the power-grid environment. But merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas. The claims in this case do not even require a new source or type of information, or new techniques for analyzing it.”).
Applicant argues “These features, in combination, are not merely "collecting, storing, and displaying" information. The geospatial/GIS presentation is used to identify and constrain the inspection context to the correct physical pipeline system and associated pipeline equipment in the field. The pipeline profile acts as a structured, equipment-centric record that couples the inspection to specific physical assets and their inspection/equipment histories. The qualification determination is a system-controlled gating operation that changes subsequent system behavior (i.e., whether an equipment-specific inspection form is issued), and the rule-based noncompliance determination is an automated comparison that produces concrete operational outputs (a report and an alert signal) tied to the noncompliant physical pipeline equipment.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is noted that a field of use does not amount to significantly more. See 2106.05 I. A. (Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:… iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h))).
Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully submits that this claimed arrangement addresses a technological problem in pipeline inspection and compliance-namely, reliably identifying the correct pipeline equipment in the field, ensuring that only qualified personnel perform the relevant inspections, and automatically determining and
communicating equipment compliance status based on stored regulatory constraints and inspection/equipment data. In distributed inspection environments, manual processes commonly lead to missed deadlines, mismatched forms, incomplete data capture, and delayed recognition of noncompliance. The claimed workflow reduces these failure modes by integrating geolocation/GIS-based asset identification with pipeline-profile retrieval, qualification gating, and automated compliance determination/reporting, thereby improving the functioning and reliability of the inspection-compliance system as a whole”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Pipeline inspection and compliance is not a technical problem, and the collection and analysis of data, and using a computer to automate an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted))”).
Applicant argues “Even if certain individual components (such as databases, user interfaces, and geolocation sensors) are generally known, Applicant respectfully submits that, an inventive concept may reside in a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of otherwise conventional components. See BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC. Here, claim 1 recites a particular integration of (a) geospatial/GIS identification and presentation of the relevant physical pipeline system, (b) pipeline-profile based retrieval and updating of equipment/inspection data tied to that physical system, and (c) rule/regulation-driven qualification gating and automated noncompliance determination with generation of an inspection report and an alert. Applicant respectfully submits that this arrangement is not the kind of generic computer implementation at issue in Alice, but rather a specific technical configuration that improves the functioning and reliability of a field-operable pipeline inspection-compliance system”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant has shown no evidence of any non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of otherwise conventional components; Applicant’s specification clearly shows that the hardware used is both generic and existing, and that they are used in their conventional manner. For example, paragraph [00047] states that “Sensors that may be used as the plurality of sensors 414 include, but are not limited to, thermometers, gas sensors, barometers, GPS, or any combination thereof”. It is unclear how an open ended set of possible sensors amounts to a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of otherwise conventional components, since the arrangement of the components is open to change. See also Applicant’s disclosure, at paragraph [00023], recites “FIG. 3 depicts exemplary computing entities 200 in the form of a computing device 300 and mobile computing device 350, which may be used to carry out the various embodiments of the invention as described herein. A computing device 300 is intended to represent various forms of digital computers, such as laptops, desktops, workstations, servers 110, databases 115, mainframes, and other appropriate computers. A mobile computing device 350 is intended to represent various forms of mobile devices, such as scanners, scanning devices, personal digital assistants, cellular telephones, smart phones, tablet computers, and other similar devices”. This is the opposite of a ‘a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of otherwise conventional components’. The claims recite a computing device (which can be any computing device, as per Applicant’s disclosure), a processor (which can be any processor, as per Applicant’s disclosure), at least one server or database (which is the opposite of a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of otherwise conventional components, since the components can be changed), and a non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to said processor, which is merely instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Applicant argues “Further, Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner does not identify evidence that this specific ordered combination-using GIS/geolocation context to select a physical pipeline system, using stored employee-qualification data to gate which equipment-specific inspection form is delivered, and generating equipment-specific reports/alerts based on rule-based comparisons to stored rules-and-regulations constraints-was well-understood, routine, and conventional. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 recites "significantly more" than any alleged judicial exception under Step 2B, and that the§ 101 rejection should be withdrawn.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
By pointing out the particular parts of Applicant’s disclosure that show that the claimed elements are merely generic computer components, performing their generic computer functions, Examiner has provided adequate evidence that the claimed limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
To the contrary, Applicant has failed to show how the use of a computer to collect and display data, or how the use of instructions to program a generic computer to perform generic computer functions ([.g. performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data; electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks; receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data).
The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1 – 8, 19, and 20 is MAINTAINED.
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 – 8, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention, when the claims are taken as a whole, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Yes
Step 2A – 1: The claims recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 recites the limitations of:
a computing device having a user interface and a geolocation device, wherein said computing device is associated with a user, [i.e., additional element of hardware / software],
wherein said user interface is configured to present pipeline equipment of a physical pipeline system within a geographic information system (GIS), [i.e., additional element of software / hardware, merely displaying collected data],
wherein said user interface is presented via a display operably connected to said computing device [i.e., additional element of hardware],
wherein said user interface is configured to capture input data, inspection data, and equipment data, wherein said input data, inspection data, and equipment data are relevant to said physical pipeline system [i.e., additional element of software / hardware for data collection],
wherein said inspection data and said equipment data of said physical pipeline system are saved within a pipeline profile associated with said physical pipeline system [i.e., additional element of storing data],
a processor operably connected to said computing device [i.e., additional element of hardware],
wherein said processor is configured to receive said inspection data, input data, and equipment data [i.e., additional element of hardware performing data collection],
at least one server or database operably connected to said processor [i.e., additional element of hardware],
wherein said at least one server or database contains rules and regulation data and employee data [i.e., additional element of hardware storing data], and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to said processor, wherein said non-transitory computer-readable medium contains instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by said processor, cause said processor to perform operations comprising [i.e., additional element of hardware / instructions to apply exception]:
receiving geospatial data from said geolocation device [i.e., additional element of data collection],
determining said physical pipeline system based on said geospatial data,
presenting said pipeline profile associated with said physical pipeline system within said GIS based on said geospatial data [i.e., additional element of data outputting],
receiving input data entered into said user interface via said computing device, wherein said input data pertains to said physical pipeline system [i.e., additional element of data collection],
retrieving said pipeline profile relevant to said pipeline system, wherein said pipeline profile contains said inspection data and said equipment data of said pipeline equipment of said pipeline system [i.e., additional element of data collection],
retrieving said employee data and said rules and regulations from said server/database [i.e., additional element of data collection],
determining if said user associated with said computing device is qualified to inspect said pipeline equipment selected within said GIS based on said input data, rules and regulations, and employee data,
sending an inspection form relevant to said pipeline equipment upon a determination that said user associated with said computing device is qualified to inspect said pipeline equipment,
receiving a completed inspection form from said computing device wherein said completed inspection form contains said equipment data and said inspection data,
comparing said equipment data and said inspection data to said rules and regulations m order to determine if said pipeline equipment is noncompliant pipeline equipment,
generating an inspection report for said non-compliant pipeline equipment, and sending a computer readable signal that causes said computing device to alert said user that said pipeline equipment is said non-compliant pipeline equipment.
These limitations (bolded and italicized), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a user inputting data regarding a pipeline into a computer to determine what to inspect, comparing stored data, such as rules and regulations, to input data and employee data, to determine employee qualifications for performing equipment inspections, and determining equipment compliance and generating a report by comparing the employee inspection to stored rules and regulations, all of which are managing personal behavior, including following rules or instructions, and fundamental economic activity, such as compliance management. Managing personal behavior and fundamental economic aciivity fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A – 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements (italicized), of a computing device having a user interface and a geolocation device, wherein said computing device is associated with a user; wherein said user interface is presented via a display operably connected to said computing device; a processor operably connect to said computing device; a server or database, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to said processor, which amount to generic computer hardware, recited at a high level of generality, used as a tool to perform generic computer functions, and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)1).
The claim additionally recites the additional elements (italicized) of wherein said user interface is configured to present pipeline equipment of a physical pipeline system within a geographic information system (GIS); wherein said inspection data and said equipment data of said physical pipeline system are saved within a pipeline profile associated with said physical pipeline system; receive said inspection data, input data, and equipment data; receiving geospatial data from said geolocation device; presenting said pipeline profile associated with said physical pipeline system within said GIS based on said geospatial data; receiving input data entered into said user interface via said computing device, wherein said input data pertains to said physical pipeline system; retrieving said pipeline profile relevant to said pipeline system; and retrieving said employee data and said rules and regulations from said server/database, however these are mere data gathering, outputting, and storing, recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, outputting, and storing.
Further, the claims do not provide for or recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO)
The claim is directed to the abstract idea. (Step 2A: YES).
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims, and it has been held that “[i]n defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow.” (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350. )
Turning to the dependent claims, none of the claimed features of the dependent claims further limit the claimed invention in such a way to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter (e.g. change the scope of the claimed invention as to no longer be directed towards an abstract idea, or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se), nor do they add limitations that, when taken as a combination, result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. In respect to exemplary dependent claims 2 – 10;
Claims 2 – 6 merely recite determining similar pipeline systems, using generic computer tools, and performing the same judicial exception identified in claim 1;
Claim 7 merely recites an additional limitation regarding compliance scores;
Claim 8 merely further defines the steps of the judicial exception found in claim 1.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, or the recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions previously known to the industry2 [e.g. performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data; electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks; receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data] .
Applicant’s specification, at, e.g., FIG. 1, FIG. 2, and paragraphs [00012]-[00032], [00047] provides evidence of generic computer hardware performing generic, well-known, computer functions.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements, both individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the above identified abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more (e.g. improvements to another technology or technical fields, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment) than the abstract idea itself. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation3.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. No. 13–298.
Subject Matter Distinguishable from Prior Art
The closest prior art of record includes: Johansson (US 20220351353), which discloses a computing device comprising a user interface configured to 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 audit, wherein said equipment data pertains to a mechanical condition of said pipeline equipment; Medina (US 20130338833) which discloses a server/database operably containing rules and regulations data and connected to said computing device, retrieving said rules and regulation data from said server/database; Banerjee (CN 111771112 A) which discloses a processor operably connected to said computing device and said server/database, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to said processor, wherein said non-transitory computer-readable medium contains instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by said processor, cause said processor to perform operations comprising: receiving said equipment data from said computing device; Gerling al. (US 20160146971), which discloses a system and method for pipeline management, and Ceng et al. (CN 106485805 A), which discloses a line inspection management method and system.
However, with respect to independent claims 1, 11 and 19, none of the closest prior art of record, either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11 – 18 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Miller; Jerry E. et al. US 20090013806 A1 Communication System For Pipeline Inspection
Altamirano; Arturo E. et al. US 20130290064 A1 Managing A Workflow For An Oilfield Operation
Mitra; Dipayan et al. US 20110137704 A1 System And Method For Calculating A Comprehensive Pipeline Integrity Business Risk Score
Brinton; Brett et al. US 20090237245 A1 Method And Apparatus To Automate Data Collection During A Mandatory Inpsection
Paget; Martin et al. US 20140330606 A1 System And Method For Scheduling
McWeeney; Gerard US 20220072642 A1 Methods And Apparatus For Metal Structure Fabrication
Williams; Bobby Don et al. US 20100305875 A1 Pipeline In-Line Inspection System
Loeb, JR.; Peter K. et al. US 20150111187 A1 System And Method For Providing A Client Engagement Platform To Assist A Client In The Compliance Of Addiction Treatment
Payne; Randle et al. US 12008581 B1 System and method for managing pipeline equipment
Nixon MARK et al. GB 2513709 A Method and apparatus for managing a work flow in a process plant
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 ALAN S MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5288. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10am-6pm. Examiner’s fax phone number is (571) 270-6288.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/ALAN S MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
1 MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
2 “It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294)”. Id, pages 10-11. “Likewise, the server fails to add an inventive concept because it is simply a generic computer that “administer[ s]” digital images using a known “arbitrary data bank system.” Id. at col. 5 ll. 45–46. But “[f]or the role of a computer in a computer-implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.’” Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347–48 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2359). “These steps fall squarely within our precedent finding generic computer components insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and a ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 1348 (“storing information” into memory, and using a computer to “translate the shapes on a physical page into typeface characters,” insufficient confer patent eligibility); Mortg. Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324–25 (generic computer components such as an “interface,” “network,” and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1368 (a “database” and “a communication medium” “are all generic computer elements”); BuySAFE v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”)”. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive L.L.C., (No. 15-1372, (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016)), at *12-13.
See additionally MPEP 2106.05(d).
3 “Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted))”. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Prosecution Insights