DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This is the initial office action based on the 18/807,527 application filed August 16, 2024. Claims 1-22 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) dated August 16, 2024 and June 3, 2025 are noted. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner suggests amending “measurements data” (see line 2) to read --measurement data--. Further, Examiner suggests amending “determining at least one of oil level or oil quality based on the EODP oscillation indicator” (see last bullet of the claim) to read --determining at least one of an oil level or an oil quality based on the EODP oscillation indicator--.
Claims 14 and 19 are similarly objected to for having the same issues.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1:
a. Independent claim 1 is directed toward a method, Claim 14 is directed toward a system, and Claim 19 is directed toward a non-transitory machine-readable medium (i.e., a system).
b. Therefore, each of the independent claims 1, 14, and 19 along with the corresponding dependent Claims 2-13, 15-18, and 20-22 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
STEP 2A, PRONG 1:
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas:
(1) mental processes,
(2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or
(3) mathematical concepts.
In this case, the independent Claims 1, 14, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. The language of independent claim 1 is used for illustration:
Independent Claim 1: A method for monitoring engine oil of a well system, comprising:
obtaining engine oil differential pressure (EODP) measurements data from an engine of the well system;
{{{a person may mentally think about, for example, the engine oil differential pressure, specifically checking volumes of engine oil thru a surface of the oil pan or oil well. While arguably rudimentary, it is a valid determination}}}
determining an EODP oscillation indicator based on the EODP measurement data;
{{{a person may mentally think about, for example, an indicator based upon the measured data, specifically checking volumes of engine oil thru a surface of the oil pan or oil well and adding the further steps of verifying the amount of different pressure differences. For example, a human can identify 4, 5, 6, nth different surfaces within the oil pan or oil well, where pressure differences are present}}}
determining at least one of oil level or oil quality based on the EODP oscillation indicator.
{{{a person may mentally think about, for example, an oil level or quantity based upon the indication, for example observing if the oil is more dirty or clean, i.e., oil quality, based on the oscillation, where the oscillation is determine as described above}}}.
As explained above, independent Claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent Claims 14 and 19, which are of similar scope to claim 1, likewise recite at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1.
STEP 2A, PRONG 2:
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In this case, the mental processes judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For example, independent claims 14 and 19 recite the additional elements of a processor and a memory. These limitations amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer, add insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally link use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
More specifically:
a processor… found in independent claims 14 and 19. These limitations amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer; and
a memory… found in independent claim 14 and 19. This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Therefore, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Because the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, independent claims 14 and 19 are directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include any 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 in Step 2A, Prong Two, the method steps of Claims 1, 14, and 19 do not add significantly more. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept.
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent Claim 1 is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims 2-13, 15-18, and 20-22 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent Claims 2-13, 15-18, and 20-22, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent Claims 2-13, 15-18, and 20-22 are patent ineligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-22 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Specifically referring to Claims 6 and 7, the Section 101 rejection will be withdrawn if additional detail is added as to what is doing/controlling the drilling or fracturing, i.e., a computer to control the drilling/fracturing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8, 14-16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maeda (JP 2012184701 A). Note: reference herein to the text of Maeda is directed to the machine translation provided herewith.
Regarding Claims 1, 14, and 19, Maeda discloses a method for monitoring engine oil of a system (see paragraph [0001]), wherein the method includes obtaining engine oil differential pressure (EODP) measurement data from an engine (1) of the system (see paragraph [0027]), determining an EODP oscillation indicator (waveform (P)) based on the EODP measurement data (see paragraph [0029]), and determining at least one of oil level or oil quality based on the EODP oscillation indicator (see paragraph [0029]). See also paragraphs [0036], [0037]).
Further, Maeda discloses that system operation, pressure sensing operations, and the function implicit therein is controlled by a controller (7) such as an electronic control unit, which will implicitly perform the steps noted herein, and inherently include the various claimed computer medium.
Examiner submits that recitation of the system being a well system is merely an intended use of the system. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP § 2114 (II).
Regarding Claims 2, 3, 15, and 20, Maeda discloses that the method includes determining whether the EODP oscillation indicator (P) is greater than an EODP oscillation threshold (P0), and detecting at least one of a low oil level in response to determining the EODP oscillation indicator is greater than the EODP oscillation threshold (see paragraph [0029]).
Regarding Claims 5 and 16, Maeda discloses that the method includes generating at least one of a low oil level alert for the system in response to detecting at least one of the low oil level (via warning means (8), see paragraphs [0029]-[0030]).
Regarding Claim 8, Maeda discloses that the method includes determining the EODP oscillation indicator based on the EODP measurement data includes performing at least one of data filtering operations, data cleaning operations, adaptive windowing operations, or statistical analysis operations on the EODP measurement data to determine the EODP oscillation indicator (see paragraph [0029], “the normal pressure fluctuation waveform P0 may be determined based on experimental data obtained by increasing the oil level”).
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 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.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Bayyouk et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,436,766, herein “Bayyouk”).
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, Maeda discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but is silent concerning modifying or halting operation of the system based upon an abnormality.
However, Bayyouk discloses a monitoring system configured to monitor a hydraulic fracturing pump system, the hydraulic fracturing pump system including an engine, a transmission operably coupled to the engine, and a reciprocating pump assembly operably coupled to the transmission so that the engine is configured to drive the reciprocating pump assembly via the transmission (see column 1, lines 50-56). Bayyouk discloses that adjustments to an operation of the hydraulic fracturing pump system are determined based upon sensor data related to system abnormalities (a quality of the lubricant and a pressure of the lubricant) (see column 15, lines 40-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Maeda by providing a modification or shut-down of the system when an abnormality occurs as described in Bayyouk in order protect the system from damage due to the sensed abnormalities.
Duplicate Claims Warning
Duplicate Claims Warning: Applicant is advised that should Claim 6 be found allowable, Claim 7 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 706.03(k).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 9-13, 17, 18, 21, and 22 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, various references are cited that provide detail of relevant methods for identifying abnormalities during operation of a system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES G MOUBRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5658. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM - 6:30PM.
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, Lindsay M. Low can be reached at 571-272-1196. 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.
/GRANT MOUBRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747