Detailed Action
Status of Application
The following is a Final Office Action. In response to Examiner's communication on 12/04/2025, Applicant on 01/23/2026, amended Claims 1-15 and added new Claims 16-19. Claims 1-19 are now pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendments are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections set forth in the previous action. The rejections are maintained below.
Applicants’ amendments render moot the 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in the previous action. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn in favor of new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments as outlined below.
Applicant’s amendments render moot the 35 USC 112(f) interpretations as outlined in the previous action. Accordingly, these have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments further necessitate new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 112(d) with respect to Claim 18. The previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn with the exception of Claim 11 as outlined below.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that even if the claims involve an abstract idea, which Applicant disputes, the claims are integrated into a practical application and additionally represent significantly more per Step 2B of the analysis because while some steps may arguably recite an abstract idea, in view of the ordered combination of the steps of using computer components and dividing the process into a plurality of modules, the claim as a whole is directed to an improvement to optimizing production workflows. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Note that per MPEP 2106.05(a), "an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology." While organizing salient knowledges into modules and subsequently interacting with said modules may certainly present an improvement to organizing production workflows, this methodology does not escape the bounds of what is able to be effectuated mentally; this is analogous to the way a human being could reasonably examine a plurality of factors in isolation before applying a combination of the result of analysis performed. Without further clarification as to the mechanics of how the broadly recited “divide the process into a plurality of modules” in Claim 1 is both necessarily a hardware operation and also a distinct improvement to the operations performed, this cannot be said to integrate into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Further, the specification of hardware components only serves as a general link from the abstract ideas performed to a particular technological field – namely that of a generic computing environment apparently used in some commercial or enterprise environment.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejections necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments point to a conceptualization of the invention that somewhat departs from the language of the claims and specification. Solely as it pertains to independent Claim 1, the broadest reasonable interpretation of grouping process subcomponents into “modules” is not claimed as being a specific hardware operation or manner of organizational grouping, but rather a manner of performing analysis that is part of dividing the overall process into subcomponents. Regarding the division of a process into modules, see Fig. 7 of Himono for the separation of parameters and the learning of relationships between them – the system implicitly separates the parameters that characterizes a process. The modules here are the parameters that are examined both in isolation and amongst each other, that give rise to noticeable characteristic parameters.
The cited portions of Applicant’s specification, in the context of the graphical structure that is generated, give rise to a more tangible manifestation of “dividing the process indicated by the graphical structure into a plurality of modules” in the context of Claim 8 and dependent claims, which is supported by the cited portions of Applicant’s specification as concretely depicting said modules in a graphical form, however, this is not present in Claim 1. Further, new grounds of rejection have been introduced to address this interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites “the test case list display unit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim. For purpose of examination, this claim will be understood as “wherein the productivity reduction factor display step…”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 18 further recites “generating a graphical structure of the process composed of equipment of the master data showing a connection relationship mapping among the equipment; and dividing the process indicated by the graphical structure into the plurality of modules”. These limitations are recited in independent Claim 8 from which Claim 18 depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that is directed to a judicial expectation, namely a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea and will henceforth be used as a representative claim for the 101 rejection until otherwise noted. Claim 1 recites:
A planning logic evaluation support system, comprising: a central processing unit (CPU); a storage device connected to the CPU; and a memory connected to the CPU, the memory storing instructions that when executed by the CPU, configures the CPU to: extract process characteristics of a process from master data, divide the process into a plurality of modules, extract noticeable characteristic parameters that have an effect on productivity based on the process characteristics for each of the plurality of modules, and generate production data for testing in which the noticeable characteristic parameters are dispersed in a certain scope.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute an abstract idea because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers a mental process.
“extract process characteristics from master data…”, “extract noticeable characteristic parameters…”, “divide the process into a plurality of modules”, “generate production data for testing…” recite abstract ideas - namely, mental processes that could be performed by a human with a pen and paper, per the MPEP, merely adapting them into the context of a technological environment with computing parts does not preclude them from being abstract. Further, as “divide the process into a plurality of modules” serves as an organizational tool to guide process planning, we understand it to recite a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity, namely Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. See [0003] of Applicant’s specification – managing workers factors into the production plan.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Independent Claim 8 recites at least one abstract idea by virtue of reciting substantially similar limitations.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-19 recite at least one abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on independent Claims 1,8.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into practical application. As noted in the MPEP, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exception 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.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A planning logic evaluation support system, comprising: a central processing unit (CPU); a storage device connected to the CPU; and a memory connected to the CPU, the memory storing instructions that when executed by the CPU, configures the CPU to: extract process characteristics of a process from master data, divide the process into a plurality of modules, extract noticeable characteristic parameters that have an effect on productivity based on the process characteristics for each of the plurality of modules, and generate production data for testing in which the noticeable characteristic parameters are dispersed in a certain scope.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
As it pertains to Claim 1, the additional elements in the claims include “a central processing unit(CPU)”, “a storage device connected to the CPU”, “a memory connected to the CPU…”.
When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under Step 2A Prong Two.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing an abstract idea.
Claim 3-4 additionally recites “a display”.
Claim 8 recites “generating a graphical structure…dividing the process indicated by the graphical structure into a plurality of modules”.
Claim 10 additionally recites “displays the extracted noticeable…”.
Claim 11 additionally recites “the test case list display unit”.
Claims 16, 18 recite “generating a graphical structure of the process…dividing the process indicated by the graphical structure”.
Claims 17, 19 recite “generating, as a graphical structure, connection relationships…dividing the graphical structure of the process into modules…”.
These do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application by analogous reasoning as above.
Claims 2, 5-7, 9, 12-15 do not recite any additional limitations beyond those found in claims from which they are dependent, and therefore do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to generic computing components that are merely used
as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than
generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular
technological environment or field of use. Further, looking at the additional
elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already
present when considering the additional elements individually.
Claim 3-4 additionally recites “a display”.
Claim 8 recites “generating a graphical structure…dividing the process indicated by the graphical structure into a plurality of modules”.
Claim 10 additionally recites “displays the extracted noticeable…”.
Claim 11 additionally recites “the test case list display unit”.
Claims 16, 18 recite “generating a graphical structure of the process…dividing the process indicated by the graphical structure”.
Claims 17, 19 recite “generating, as a graphical structure, connection relationships…dividing the graphical structure of the process into modules…”.
These do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more by analogous reasoning as above.
Claims 2, 5-7, 9, 12-15 do not recite any additional limitations beyond those found in claims from which they are dependent, and therefore do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himono(US 20210334947 A1) in view of Otta(US 20190122416 A1).
Claim 1
As to Claim 1,
Himono teaches:
A planning logic evaluation support system comprising: a central processing unit (CPU); a storage device connected to the CPU; and a memory connected to the CPU, the memory storing instructions that when executed by the CPU, configures the CPU to: extract process characteristics of a process from master data,
See [0084] for hardware implementations. In [0035], "he parameter extraction unit 14 extracts parameters or correlation feature values which influence whether the indicator is good/bad from among the parameters and correlation feature values thereof via, for example, machine learning, and the extracted extraction results are output to the analysis results generation unit 15. Note that the extraction method for parameters or correlation feature values which influence whether the indicator is good/bad will be described later".
extract noticeable characteristic parameters … based on the process characteristics for each of the plurality of … , and
In [0052], "The parameter extraction unit 14, for example, uses a first learning model generated by machine learning to perform this sort of separation processing. FIG. 9 is a diagram illustrating an example of a first learning model 141 provided to a parameter extraction unit 14 according to one or more embodiments. At the time of learning for the first learning model 141, the input g101 is data associating the production batch information, parameter information, indicator information, and correlation feature values, and the output g102 is at least one among parameters, correlation feature values, and information relating to a decision tree such as that in FIG. 8 which have a large influence on the indicator". The mechanics of this process are described in [0047-0050]. We understand to the noticeable characteristic parameters to be the data gleaned from analyzing parameters, such as the correlation feature values and decision tree related information, with the modules continuing to represent the parameters themselves.
extracted noticeable characteristic parameters
As outlined above, [0052] teaches such an extraction.
Himono does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Otta teaches:
parameters that have an effect on productivity
In [0036], “FIG. 2 is an illustration of an oil field map of an exemplary graphical user interface (GUI) display 200. The GUI display 200 is associated with a monitoring system of an oil field (e.g., Carabobo field), and can present a visual representation of oil field information (e.g., oil, water, and/or gas production) associated with the oil wells in the oil field. The oil field information can be based on detection by sensors at the oil wells (e.g., well head pressure, operating parameters of the oil pump, and the like) and/or other locations”.
divide the process into a plurality of modules; extract noticeable characteristic parameters that have an effect on productivity based on the process characteristics for each of the plurality of modules
Note the grouping of distinct sub-processes in [0053], “Oil/gas production can include a complex combination of several sub-processes that can be related to various units of the oil production system. For example, the oil production system can include crude distillation unit, control valves, pumps, reservoir, casing, pumps, tubing and the like. Liquefied Natural Gas (“LNG”) production system can include wells, slug catcher unit, condensate column unit, condensate tank unit, CO2 separator unit, and the like. The overall oil/gas production can be improved by improving one or more of its sub-processes. A sub-process can be improved by providing a user with what-if scenarios for the sub-process in an automated manner. In the what-if scenario, operating parameters (e.g., state parameters, user configurable parameters, and the like) of the sub-process can be tweaked to identify the parameter values that can improve the overall efficiency of production”.
generate production data for testing in which the ... are dispersed in a certain scope.
In [0038], "The DTV system can use the calibrated digital models to determine the range of desirable operating parameters (e.g., feasible operating region) for the operation of one or more wells, and/or for the operation of the entire oil cluster. Determination of the desirable operating parameters can be based on constraints related to a single well (e.g., permissible range of values for oil well operational parameters such as surface flowrate, bottomhole pressure, pump frequency, well head pressure, intake pressure, and the like) and/or multiple wells in the oil cluster (e.g., total production of oil, water, and/or gas by multiple oil wells, power consumed by multiple oil wells, and the like". Note the distinction between the desirable range of the operating parameters and the constraints the parameters are subject to; while the latter can also be specified as a range, it is the desirable range that we analogize to be our scope that we source test data from.
Otta discloses a system for monitoring the performance of industrial machines in the context of producing an output, namely oil. Himono discloses a system meant to analyze production data in an industrial context and provide detailed analyses. Each reference discloses means to analyze factors pertaining to the production of some output. Extending the simulatory capabilities of Otta to the analytical system of Himono is applicable as they are both pertained to analysis of production in an industrial context.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the simulatory capabilities as taught in Otta and apply that to the system of Himono. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting said simulatory capabilities would enable users to examine different, potentially optimal configurations of settings and the downstream effects of varying them. Himono discloses the analytical capabilities to parse what matters from raw performance data, and Otta enables users to model the variation of the factors that matter.
Claim 2
As to Claim 2, Himono teaches:
The planning logic evaluation support system according to claim 1, wherein the storage device stores productivity reduction factor data in which the process characteristics and the noticeable characteristic parameters are correlated, and wherein the CPU is configured to extract noticeable characteristic parameters for each of the plurality of modules by referring to the productivity reduction factor data.
Regarding the mechanics of determining noticeable characteristic parameters via correlations, in [0050], "Accordingly, in FIG. 8, setting the correlation feature value=0.9 of parameter 1 and parameter 2 as a boundary can substantially divide the good/bad indicator information, and therefore, it is understood that parameter 1 and parameter 2 have a large influence on the indicator information. Moreover, according to FIG. 8, g104, which could not be separated by only the correlation feature value of parameter 1 and parameter 2, can be separated by further setting the correlation feature value 0.96 of parameter 3 and parameter 4 as a boundary, and therefore it is understood that parameter 3 and parameter 4 influence the indicator information. That is, the example of FIG. 8 shows that the good/bad indicator information could be substantially separated by parameter 1 and parameter 2 and that it could be further completely separated by parameter 3 and parameter 4. Specifically, the factor for indicator information being “bad” is when the correlation feature value of parameter 1 and parameter 2 is less than 0.9 and when the correlation feature value of parameter 3 and parameter 4 is less than 0.96".
Claims 3
As to Claim 3, Himono combined with Otta teaches all the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above.
Himono teaches:
the extracted noticeable characteristic parameters…the extracted noticeable characteristic parameters
As outlined above, [0052] teaches such an extraction.
Himono does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Otta teaches:
The planning logic evaluation support system according to claim 2 further comprising: a display, wherein the CPU is configured to display ... and receive a selection of one or a plurality of the … parameters.
In [0056], " The user can provide operational constraints for the operation of one or more wells (e.g., oil pumps in the wells) in the group and/or combined operational constraints associated the group of wells. For example, the user can set constraints on the intrinsic operating parameters (e.g., surface flowrate, bottomhole pressure, well head pressure, intake pressure, critical gas lift rate, gas production, and the like), and extrinsic operating parameters (oil production, water production, power consumption, pump frequency) of the pump of an oil well in the group of selected oil wells". In [0057], "In some implementations, selection of the plurality of wells that constitute the group and the providing of the operational constraints of the group can be provided in distinct steps (e.g., by different users via different graphical user interfaces". Fig. 6 shows an exemplary GUI implementing the intake of user inputted constraints. Again, note the distinction between the desirable range of the operating parameters and the constraints the parameters are subject to; the user specified constraints are what is relevant here.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the simulatory capabilities of Otta and apply that to the system of Himono. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himono(US 20210334947 A1) in view of Otta(US 20190122416 A1) in further view of Nonaka(US 20190258759 A1).
Claim 4
As to Claim 4, Himono combined with Otta teaches all the limitations of Claim 3 as discussed above.
Himono teaches:
the noticeable characteristic parameters
As outlined above, [0052] teaches such an extraction.
Himono does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Otta teaches:
and maps and displays production data for testing to the user.
In [0046], "FIG. 9 is an illustration of the GUI 200 that provides the optimized operating parameters of an oil well of the oil well cluster (e.g., oil well “SA_0267”). A user can select the oil well whose optimized parameters can be displayed in the information panel 240 (e.g., by clicking on the name of the oil well in the vertical taskbar 220). The information panel 240 can include, for example, a plot 256 of the pressure gradient of the selected oil well. The information panel 240 can also include a plot 258 of the well head pressure versus frequency of an oil pump associated with the selected oil well (e.g., oil well “SA_0267”). The pressure gradient plot 256 shows the pressure versus depth plot and the plot on 258 shows the feasible boundary. FIG. 10 is an illustration of the GUI 200 that provides the simulated operating parameters of a second oil well of the oil well cluster (e.g., oil well “SA_0159”)". As this rendering of the feasible boundary includes the desirable operating ranges, or the range in which the simulations are performed, we consider this to disclose the display of production data for testing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the simulatory capabilities of Otta and apply that to the system of Himono. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Himono combined with Otta does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Nonaka teaches:
The planning logic evaluation support system according to claim 3 further comprising: a display, wherein the CPU is configured to assign … selected to axes
In [0056], “The device includes: … means for displaying the data analysis condition input screen through which the operator selects variables for the X-axis and the Y-axis to be plotted on the graph so as to be displayed, inputting the variance for grouping, and displaying the input data analysis condition information on the input screen”. Such a graph is illustrated in Fig. 6.
Himono combined with Otta teaches a system meant to analyze factors pertaining to the production of some output. Nonaka teaches a system meant to analyze manufacturing cost and performance. Each reference discloses means to analyze factors pertaining to the production of some output in an industrial context. Extending the graphical display of Nonaka to the analytical system of Himono combined with Otta is applicable as they are both pertained to analyzing and providing insights on data in an industrial context.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the graphical displays as taught in Nonaka and apply that to the system of Himono combined with Otta. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting said simulatory capabilities would enable users to have further granularity in operating simulations. Fig.9 illustratively displays graphing two operating parameters against each other, under the heading Feasible Region Boundary. It would be logical to extend those operating parameters to be customizable depending on the needs of the user.
Claim 5
As to Claim 5, Himono combined with Otta and Nonaka teaches all the limitations of Claim 4 as discussed above.
Himono teaches:
noticeable characteristic parameters…noticeable characteristic parameters
As outlined above, [0052] teaches such an extraction.
Himono does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Otta teaches:
The planning logic evaluation support system according to claim 4, wherein the CPU is configured to, as for the … in a certain scope, generate a test case in which the values of the … disperse.
In [0038], "The DTV system can use the calibrated digital models to determine the range of desirable operating parameters (e.g., feasible operating region) for the operation of one or more wells, and/or for the operation of the entire oil cluster. Determination of the desirable operating parameters can be based on constraints related to a single well (e.g., permissible range of values for oil well operational parameters such as surface flowrate, bottomhole pressure, pump frequency, well head pressure, intake pressure, and the like) and/or multiple wells in the oil cluster (e.g., total production of oil, water, and/or gas by multiple oil wells, power consumed by multiple oil wells, and the like". We understand the scope given to be the desirable range. These optimized ranges can be used to perform simulations, analogizing to our generation of test data in [0045] " FIG. 8 is an illustration of the GUI 200 that can include the results of the simulation of one or more digital models based on the oil well cluster constraints provided by a user (e.g., as described at step 108 of FIG. 1). For example, the information panel 240 can include plots of the current oil production 250 and optimized oil production 252 (result of the simulation of the one or more digital models) of the various oil wells of the cluster (e.g., cluster 01). The vertical taskbar 220 can include the results of the optimization (e.g., oil production of the various oil wells in the cluster)".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the simulatory capabilities of Otta and apply that to the system of Himono. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 6
As to Claim 6, Himono combined with Otta and Nonaka teaches all the limitations of Claim 5 as discussed above.
Himono teaches:
noticeable characteristic parameters
As outlined above, [0052] teaches such an extraction.
Himono does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Otta teaches:
The planning logic evaluation support system according to claim 5, wherein the CPU is configured to generate production data for testing having values that are the same as or closest to the … in the test case.
As outlined above, the values for the test case are taken to be the optimized range in [0038], "The DTV system can use the calibrated digital models to determine the range of desirable operating parameters (e.g., feasible operating region) for the operation of one or more wells, and/or for the operation of the entire oil cluster. Determination of the desirable operating parameters can be based on constraints related to a single well (e.g., permissible range of values for oil well operational parameters such as surface flowrate, bottomhole pressure, pump frequency, well head pressure, intake pressure, and the like) and/or multiple wells in the oil cluster (e.g., total production of oil, water, and/or gas by multiple oil wells, power consumed by multiple oil wells, and the like". These optimized ranges can be used to perform simulations, analogizing to our generation of test data in [0045] " FIG. 8 is an illustration of the GUI 200 that can include the results of the simulation of one or more digital models based on the oil well cluster constraints provided by a user (e.g., as described at step 108 of FIG. 1). For example, the information panel 240 can include plots of the current oil production 250 and optimized oil production 252 (result of the simulation of the one or more digital models) of the various oil wells of the cluster (e.g., cluster 01). The vertical taskbar 220 can include the results of the optimization (e.g., oil production of the various oil wells in the cluster)".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the simulatory capabilities of Otta and apply that to the system of Himono. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himono(US 20210334947 A1) in view of Otta(US 20190122416 A1) in further view of Kimoto(US 20150073860 A1).
Claim 7
As to Claim 7, Himono combined with Otta teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above.
Himono does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Kimoto teaches:
The planning logic evaluation support system according to claim 1, wherein the storage device stores the process characteristics as element patterns
In [0022], “Referring to FIG. 2, past activity items for improving production capabilities are classified by process (S1). Then, from the classified activity items, a factor X affecting the progress of production is extracted and analyzed (S2), and information on progress Y is obtained (S3). The factor in relation to approaches may include, process, operation rate, introduction of new devices, and the like, for example. In addition, the factor in relation to degree of dependence on a device manufacturer may include necessity of modification of device hardware, necessity of modification of device software, and the like. The factor in relation to degree of similarity to conventional methods may include development by the same product type or the same machine model, development by a different product type or a different machine model, and the like”. Fig. 3 details the storage of such extraction as explained in [0024]. Notably, we understand this to facilitate a comparison of different variables and their impact, enabling the user to view the empirical benefit of adjusting different variables.
and wherein the CPU is configured to generate a process patterned from the master data, compare the process against the element patterns,
We consider the workflow of modelling of industrial processes and associated probabilities to disclose this limitation. In [0030], “Referring to FIG. 5, the factor X affecting the progress of production in relation to a prediction item is analyzed (S11). Next, a model F for determining the progress Y from the factor X is applied (S12) to predict the progress Y (S13). At that time, the progress Y can be obtained by the equation Y=FX. The model F can use the foregoing multiple regression equation. The progress Y can be expressed by an advance or a delay with respect to a scheduled development date. The prediction item is developed to difficulty level in relation to progress of production (S14)”. Notably, the result of our computation of element patterns, is used in this process, as explained in [0023] regarding the previously computed factor X, disclosing the comparison aspect. Support for viewing this modelling as a process is found in [0038], explaining Fig. 9, where we can graphically depict the result of our modelling various processes, as the different models are shown to represent distinct entities.
and extract characteristics of the process.
In [0039], “ After the development probabilities are determined with respect to development delays for the respective processes A, B, . . . , H, I, and J, the arithmetic operation (development probability).times.(production capability) can be performed to determine expected values for target values in the month of N and display the same on the bar graph. The expected values can be provided with ranges according to the difficulty level ranks illustrated in FIG. 6, for example. In addition, the development probabilities (development risks) with respect to the expected values can be numerically displayed as success rates with respect to the target values in the month of N”. Our characteristics here are our derived outputs from the modelling workflow, such as expected values with probabilities.
Himono combined with Otta teaches a system meant to analyze factors pertaining to the production of some output. Kimoto teaches a system for analyzing production in an industrial context. Each reference discloses means to analyze factors pertaining to the production of some output in an industrial context. Extending the modelling workflow of Kimoto to the analytical system of Himono combined with Otta is applicable as they are both pertained to analyzing and providing insights on data in an industrial context.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the process generation as taught in Kimoto and apply that to the system of Himono combined with Otta. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that the ability to view the empirical benefit of adjusting variables would enrich the simulatory capabilities of Himono combined with Otta.
Claims 8-10, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himono(US 20210334947 A1) in view of Otta(US 20190122416 A1) in further view of Stummer(US 8688260 B2).
Claim 8
As to Claim 8,
Himono teaches:
A planning logic evaluation support method that is executed by an information processing device equipped with a control unit, a storage device, an input unit, and a output unit, the method comprising: a process characteristic analysis step to extract process characteristics from data
See [0084] for hardware implementations. In [0035], "he parameter extraction unit 14 extracts parameters or correlation feature values which influence whether the indicator is good/bad from among the parameters and correlation feature values thereof via, for example, machine learning, and the extracted extraction results are output to the analysis results generation unit 15. Note that the extraction method for parameters or correlation feature values which influence whether the indicator is good/bad will be described later".
a productivity reduction factor extraction step to extract noticeable characteristic parameters … based on the process characteristics for each of the plurality of …, and
In [0052], "The parameter extraction unit 14, for example, uses a first learning model generated by machine learning to perform this sort of separation processing. FIG. 9 is a diagram illustrating an example of a first learning model 141 provided to a parameter extraction unit 14 according to one or more embodiments. At the time of learning for the first learning model 141, the input g101 is data associating the production batch information, parameter information, indicator information, and correlation feature values, and the output g102 is at least one among parameters, correlation feature values, and information relating to a decision tree such as that in FIG. 8 which have a large influence on the indicator". The mechanics of this process are described in [0047-0050]. We understand to the noticeable characteristic parameters to be the data gleaned from analyzing parameters, such as the correlation feature values and decision tree related information, with the modules continuing to represent the parameters themselves.
extracted noticeable characteristic parameters
As outlined above, [0052] teaches such an extraction.
Himono does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Otta teaches:
parameters that have an effect on productivity
In [0036], “FIG. 2 is an illustration of an oil field map of an exemplary graphical user interface (GUI) display 200. The GUI display 200 is associated with a monitoring system of an oil field (e.g., Carabobo field), and can present a visual representation of oil field information (e.g., oil, water, and/or gas production) associated with the oil wells in the oil field. The oil field information can be based on detection by sensors at the oil wells (e.g., well head pressure, operating parameters of the oil pump, and the like) and/or other locations”.
dividing the process indicated by … into a plurality of modules; … extract noticeable characteristic parameters that have an effect on productivity based on the process characteristics for each of the plurality of modules
Note the grouping of distinct sub-processes in [0053], “Oil/gas production can include a complex combination of several sub-processes that can be related to various units of the oil production system. For example, the oil production system can include crude distillation unit, control valves, pumps, reservoir, casing, pumps, tubing and the like. Liquefied Natural Gas (“LNG”) production system can include wells, slug catcher unit, condensate column unit, condensate tank unit, CO2 separator unit, and the like. The overall oil/gas production can be improved by improving one or more of its sub-processes. A sub-process can be improved by providing a user with what-if scenarios for the sub-process in an automated manner. In the what-if scenario, operating parameters (e.g., state parameters, user configurable parameters, and the like) of the sub-process can be tweaked to identify the parameter values that can improve the overall efficiency of production”.
a test production data generation step to generate production data for testing in which the ... are dispersed in a certain scope.
In [0038], "The DTV system can use the calibrated digital models to determine the range of desirable operating parameters (e.g., feasible operating region) for the operation of one or more wells, and/or for the operation of the entire oil cluster. Determination of the desirable operating parameters can be based on constraints related to a single well (e.g., permissible range of values for oil well operational parameters such as surface flowrate, bottomhole pressure, pump frequency, well head pressure, intake pressure, and the like) and/or multiple wells in the oil cluster (e.g., total production of oil, water, and/or gas by multiple oil wells, power consumed by multiple oil wells, and the like". Note the distinction between the desirable range of the operating parameters and the constraints the parameters are subject to; while the latter can also be specified as a range, it is the desirable range that we analogize to be our scope that we source test data from.
Otta discloses a system for monitoring the performance of industrial machines in the context of producing an output, namely oil. Himono discloses a system meant to analyze production data in an industrial context and provide detailed analyses. Each reference discloses means to analyze factors pertaining to the production of some output. Extending the simulatory capabilities of Otta to the analytical system of Himono is applicable as they are both pertained to analysis of production in an industrial context.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the simulatory capabilities as taught in Otta and apply that to the system of Himono. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting said simulatory capabilities would enable users to examine different, potentially optimal configurations of settings and the downstream effects of varying them. Himono discloses the analytical capabilities to parse what matters from raw performance data, and Otta enables users to model the variation of the factors that matter.
Himono combined with Otta do not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Stummer teaches:
generating a graphical structure of a process composed of equipment of the master data showing a connection relationship mapping among the equipment; dividing the process indicated by the graphical structure into the plurality of modules.
See Fig. 3, and Col 12 Lines 3-9, “Compared with FIG. 2, significant changes have been made to the configuration of the overall machine process of the injection moulding machine, including its make-up of individual machine units and partial machine processes and their synchronisation and parameter settings in the process diagram as a result of running the appropriate method steps of the method proposed by the invention”. Further clarification is given as to the mechanics of the diagram in Col 12 Lines 9-67. The overall process is divided into logical clusters. These correspond to a position along time axis(going from left to right), as an example explaining this see Col 12 Lines 62-63, “starting the forward movement 31 of a stroke of the ejector 17 with a start and end time L1 respectively L2”, where L1 and L2 are positioned left to right at the bottom right corner of the diagram, and relevant machine unit(see 19, 36, 20-23), with lines denoting transitions between components and their relationships in the context of the overall workflow. This is a graphic editor generated by the user as a tool to model the process, see Claim 1, “A method for enabling a user to create, edit, monitor or optimize an overall machine process of a programmable machine or system using a graphics editor, wherein the machine or system comprises a plurality of separately activated machine units for control purposes, said method comprising the steps of…”.
Himono combined with Otta teaches a system meant to analyze factors pertaining to the production of some output. Stummer teaches a system directed to visualizing machine processes. Each reference discloses means to analyze processes in an industrial context. Extending the modelling workflow of Stummer to the analytical system of Himono combined with Otta is applicable as they are both pertained to analyzing and providing insights on data in an industrial context.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the graphic generation as taught in Stummer and apply that to the system of Himono combined with Otta. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that the ability to view the graphical depiction of a process along with associated parameters would enhance the simulatory capabilities of Himono combined with Otta.
Claim 9
As to Claim 9, Himono teaches:
The planning logic evaluation support method according to claim 8, wherein the storage device stores productivity reduction factor data in which the process characteristics and the noticeable characteristic parameters are correlated, and wherein the productivity reduction factor extraction step extracts noticeable characteristic parameters for each of the plurality of modules by referring to the productivity reduction factor data.
Regarding the mechanics of determining noticeable characteristic parameters via correlations, in [0050], "Accordingly, in FIG. 8, setting the correlation feature value=0.9 of parameter 1 and parameter 2 as a boundary can substantially divide the good/bad indicator information, and therefore, it is understood that parameter 1 and parameter 2 have a large influence on the indicator information. Moreover, according to FIG. 8, g104, which could not be separated by only the correlation feature value of parameter 1 and parameter 2, can be separated by further setting the correlation feature value 0.96 of parameter 3 and parameter 4 as a boundary, and therefore it is understood that parameter 3 and parameter 4 influence the indicator information. That is, the example of FIG. 8 shows that the good/bad indicator information could be substantially separated by parameter 1 and parameter 2 and that it could be further completely separated by parameter 3 and parameter 4. Specifically, the factor for indicator information being “bad” is when the correlation feature value of parameter 1 and parameter 2 is less than 0.9 and when the correlation feature value of parameter 3 and parameter 4 is less than 0.96".
Claims 10
As to Claim 10, Himono combined with Otta and Stummer teaches all the limitations of Claim 9 as discussed above.
Himono teaches:
the extracted noticeable characteristic parameters
As outlined above, [0052] teaches such an extraction.
Himono does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Otta teaches:
The planning logic evaluation support method according to claim 9, further comprising: a productivity reduction factor display step, wherein the productivity reduction factor display step displays ... and allows a user to select one or a plurality of ones of them.
In [0056], " The user can provide operational constraints for the operation of one or more wells (e.g., oil pumps in the wells) in the group and/or combined operational constraints associated the group of wells. For example, the user can set constraints on the intrinsic operating parameters (e.g., surface flowrate, bottomhole pressure, well head pressure, intake pressure, critical gas lift rate, gas production, and the like), and extrinsic operating parameters (oil production, water production, power consumption, pump frequency) of the pump of an oil well in the group of selected oil wells". In [0057], "In some implementations, selection of the plurality of wells that constitute the group and the providing of the operational constraints of the group can be provided in distinct steps (e.g., by different users via different graphical user interfaces". Fig. 6 shows an exemplary GUI implementing the intake of user inputted constraints. Again, note the distinction between the desirable range of the operating parameters and the constraints the parameters are subject to; the user specified constraints are what is relevant here.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the simulatory capabilities of Otta and apply that to the system of Himono. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 16, 18
As to Claim 16, Himono combined with Otta teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Himono combined with Otta do not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Stummer teaches:
The planning logic evaluation support system according to claim 1, wherein the CPU is configured to: generate a graphical structure of the process composed of equipment of the master data showing a connection relationship mapping among the equipment, and divide the process indicated by the graphical structure into the plurality of modules.
See Fig. 3, and Col 12 Lines 3-9, “Compared with FIG. 2, significant changes have been made to the configuration of the overall machine process of the injection moulding machine, including its make-up of individual machine units and partial machine processes and their synchronisation and parameter settings in the process diagram as a result of running the appropriate method steps of the method proposed by the invention”. Further clarification is given as to the mechanics of the diagram in Col 12 Lines 9-67. The overall process is divided into logical clusters. These correspond to a position along time axis(going from left to right), as an example explaining this see Col 12 Lines 62-63, “starting the forward movement 31 of a stroke of the ejector 17 with a start and end time L1 respectively L2”, where L1 and L2 are positioned left to right at the bottom right corner of the diagram, and relevant machine unit(see 19, 36, 20-23), with lines denoting transitions between components and their relationships in the context of the overall workflow. This is a graphic editor generated by the user as a tool to model the process, see Claim 1, “A method for enabling a user to create, edit, monitor or optimize an overall machine process of a programmable machine or system using a graphics editor, wherein the machine or system comprises a plurality of separately activated machine units for control purposes, said method comprising the steps of…”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the graphic generation as taught in Stummer and apply that to the system of Himono combined with Otta. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above in Claim 8.
Claims 17, 19
As to Claim 17, Himono combined with Otta teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Himono combined with Otta do not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Stummer teaches:
The planning logic evaluation support system according to claim 1, wherein the CPU is configured to: generate, as a graphical structure, connection relationships among equipment, buffers, and setup, and divide the graphical structure of the process into modules by dividing at buffers.
As outlined above, the Stummer references teaches graphically generating a process model that divides subprocesses and components into logical units. We understand buffers and setup time to correspond to the timing supported by the Stummer reference. In Col 4 Lines 30-43, “The expression process-related waiting times is used here as meaning waiting times assigned to at least one partial machine process which are regarded as technically necessary timing pre-runs or after-runs. In terms of taking a systematic view, it is very much of advantage to categorize these waiting times under the partial machine processes in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. Since it is often practical to set these waiting times so that they are not based exclusively on the respective minimum waiting times required due to the prevailing physical and/or chemical process conditions, but to make them longer based on the user's technical experience of configuring and monitoring the overall machine process, it is recommendable to set the waiting times in accordance with this embodiment”. As buffers are transition periods after the completion of a process, we can understand them to be after-run wait times, whereas setup can be understood as a pre-run wait time. Again referencing Figure 3, the triangles denote wait times along the time axis, see Col 12 Lines 9-67 as to the mechanics of such.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the graphic generation as taught in Stummer and apply that to the system of Himono combined with Otta. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above in Claim 8.
Claims 11-13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himono(US 20210334947 A1) in view of Otta(US 20190122416 A1) in further view of Stummer(US 8688260 B2) in further view of Nonaka(US 20190258759 A1).
Claim 11
As to Claim 11, Himono combined with Otta and Stummer teaches all the limitations of Claim 10 as discussed above.
Himono teaches:
the noticeable characteristic parameters
As outlined above, [0052] teaches such an extraction.
Himono does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Otta teaches:
and maps and displays production data for testing to the user.
In [0046], "FIG. 9 is an illustration of the GUI 200 that provides the optimized operating parameters of an oil well of the oil well cluster (e.g., oil well “SA_0267”). A user can select the oil well whose optimized parameters can be displayed in the information panel 240 (e.g., by clicking on the name of the oil well in the vertical taskbar 220). The information panel 240 can include, for example, a plot 256 of the pressure gradient of the selected oil well. The information panel 240 can also include a plot 258 of the well head pressure versus frequency of an oil pump associated with the selected oil well (e.g., oil well “SA_0267”). The pressure gradient plot 256 shows the pressure versus depth plot and the plot on 258 shows the feasible boundary. FIG. 10 is an illustration of the GUI 200 that provides the simulated operating parameters of a second oil well of the oil well cluster (e.g., oil well “SA_0159”)". As this rendering of the feasible boundary includes the desirable operating ranges, or the range in which the simulations are performed, we consider this to disclose the display of production data for testing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the simulatory capabilities of Otta and apply that to the system of Himono. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Himono combined with Stummer and Otta does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Nonaka teaches:
The planning logic evaluation support system according to claim 10, further comprising: a test case list display step, wherein the test case list display unit assigns … selected by the user to axes
In [0056], “The device includes: … means for displaying the data analysis condition input screen through which the operator selects variables for the X-axis and the Y-axis to be plotted on the graph so as to be displayed, inputting the variance for grouping, and displaying the input data analysis condition information on the input screen”. Such a graph is illustrated in Fig. 6.
Himono combined with Otta and Stummer teaches a system meant to analyze factors pertaining to the production of some output. Nonaka teaches a system meant to analyze manufacturing cost and performance. Each reference discloses means to analyze factors pertaining to the production of some output in an industrial context. Extending the graphical display of Nonaka to the analytical system of Himono combined with Otta and Stummer is applicable as they are both pertained to analyzing and providing insights on data in an industrial context.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the graphical displays as taught in Nonaka and apply that to the system of Himono combined with Otta and Stummer. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting said simulatory capabilities would enable users to have further granularity in operating simulations. Fig.9 illustratively displays graphing two operating parameters against each other, under the heading Feasible Region Boundary. It would be logical to extend those operating parameters to be customizable depending on the needs of the user.
Claim 12
As to Claim 12, Himono combined with Otta, Stummer and Nonaka teaches all the limitations of Claim 11 as discussed above.
Himono teaches:
noticeable characteristic parameters
As outlined above, [0052] teaches such an extraction.
Himono does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Otta teaches:
The planning logic evaluation support method according to claim 11, wherein, as for the noticeable characteristic parameters in a certain scope, the test production data generation step generates a test case in which the values of the … disperse.
In [0038], "The DTV system can use the calibrated digital models to determine the range of desirable operating parameters (e.g., feasible operating region) for the operation of one or more wells, and/or for the operation of the entire oil cluster. Determination of the desirable operating parameters can be based on constraints related to a single well (e.g., permissible range of values for oil well operational parameters such as surface flowrate, bottomhole pressure, pump frequency, well head pressure, intake pressure, and the like) and/or multiple wells in the oil cluster (e.g., total production of oil, water, and/or gas by multiple oil wells, power consumed by multiple oil wells, and the like". We understand the scope given to be the desirable range. These optimized ranges can be used to perform simulations, analogizing to our generation of test data in [0045] " FIG. 8 is an illustration of the GUI 200 that can include the results of the simulation of one or more digital models based on the oil well cluster constraints provided by a user (e.g., as described at step 108 of FIG. 1). For example, the information panel 240 can include plots of the current oil production 250 and optimized oil production 252 (result of the simulation of the one or more digital models) of the various oil wells of the cluster (e.g., cluster 01). The vertical taskbar 220 can include the results of the optimization (e.g., oil production of the various oil wells in the cluster)".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the simulatory capabilities of Otta and apply that to the system of Himono. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 13
As to Claim 13, Himono combined with Otta, Stummer and Nonaka teaches all the limitations of Claim 12 as discussed above.
Himono teaches:
noticeable characteristic parameters
As outlined above, [0052] teaches such an extraction.
Himono does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Otta teaches:
The planning logic evaluation support method according to claim 12, wherein the test production data generation step generates production data for testing having values that are the same as or closest to the … in the test case.
As outlined above, the values for the test case are taken to be the optimized range in [0038], "The DTV system can use the calibrated digital models to determine the range of desirable operating parameters (e.g., feasible operating region) for the operation of one or more wells, and/or for the operation of the entire oil cluster. Determination of the desirable operating parameters can be based on constraints related to a single well (e.g., permissible range of values for oil well operational parameters such as surface flowrate, bottomhole pressure, pump frequency, well head pressure, intake pressure, and the like) and/or multiple wells in the oil cluster (e.g., total production of oil, water, and/or gas by multiple oil wells, power consumed by multiple oil wells, and the like". These optimized ranges can be used to perform simulations, analogizing to our generation of test data in [0045] " FIG. 8 is an illustration of the GUI 200 that can include the results of the simulation of one or more digital models based on the oil well cluster constraints provided by a user (e.g., as described at step 108 of FIG. 1). For example, the information panel 240 can include plots of the current oil production 250 and optimized oil production 252 (result of the simulation of the one or more digital models) of the various oil wells of the cluster (e.g., cluster 01). The vertical taskbar 220 can include the results of the optimization (e.g., oil production of the various oil wells in the cluster)".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the simulatory capabilities of Otta and apply that to the system of Himono. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 15
As to Claim 15, Himono combined with Otta, Stummer and Nonaka teaches all the limitations of Claim 13 as discussed above.
Himono teaches:
noticeable characteristic parameters
As outlined above, [0052] teaches such an extraction of noticeable characteristic parameters
Himono does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Otta teaches:
The planning logic evaluation support method according to claim 13, wherein the test production data generation step generates production data for testing having values that are the same as or closest to the … in the test case based on the master data.
As outlined above, the values for the test case are taken to be the optimized range in [0038], "The DTV system can use the calibrated digital models to determine the range of desirable operating parameters (e.g., feasible operating region) for the operation of one or more wells, and/or for the operation of the entire oil cluster. Determination of the desirable operating parameters can be based on constraints related to a single well (e.g., permissible range of values for oil well operational parameters such as surface flowrate, bottomhole pressure, pump frequency, well head pressure, intake pressure, and the like) and/or multiple wells in the oil cluster (e.g., total production of oil, water, and/or gas by multiple oil wells, power consumed by multiple oil wells, and the like". These optimized ranges can be used to perform simulations, analogizing to our generation of test data in [0045] " FIG. 8 is an illustration of the GUI 200 that can include the results of the simulation of one or more digital models based on the oil well cluster constraints provided by a user (e.g., as described at step 108 of FIG. 1). For example, the information panel 240 can include plots of the current oil production 250 and optimized oil production 252 (result of the simulation of the one or more digital models) of the various oil wells of the cluster (e.g., cluster 01). The vertical taskbar 220 can include the results of the optimization (e.g., oil production of the various oil wells in the cluster)". Note that in this case, the test case, our simulation, is inherently based on the master data of various operating parameters and constraints.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the simulatory capabilities of Otta and apply that to the system of Himono. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himono(US 20210334947 A1) in view of Otta(US 20190122416 A1) in further view of Stummer(US 8688260 B2) in further view of Nonaka(US 20190258759 A1) in further view of Kimoto(US 20150073860 A1).
Claim 14
As to Claim 14, Himono combined with Otta, Stummer and Nonaka teaches all the limitations of Claim 13 above.
Himono combined with Otta, Stummer and Nonaka does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Kimoto teaches:
The planning logic evaluation support method according to claim 13, wherein the storage device comprises a process characteristic library to store the process characteristics as element patterns
In [0022], “Referring to FIG. 2, past activity items for improving production capabilities are classified by process (S1). Then, from the classified activity items, a factor X affecting the progress of production is extracted and analyzed (S2), and information on progress Y is obtained (S3). The factor in relation to approaches may include, process, operation rate, introduction of new devices, and the like, for example. In addition, the factor in relation to degree of dependence on a device manufacturer may include necessity of modification of device hardware, necessity of modification of device software, and the like. The factor in relation to degree of similarity to conventional methods may include development by the same product type or the same machine model, development by a different product type or a different machine model, and the like”. Fig. 3 details the storage of such extraction as explained in [0024]. Notably, we understand this to facilitate a comparison of different variables and their impact, enabling the user to view the empirical benefit of adjusting different variables.
and wherein the characteristic analysis step generates a process patterned from the master data, compares the process against the element patterns,
We consider the workflow of modelling of industrial processes and associated probabilities to disclose this limitation. In [0030], “Referring to FIG. 5, the factor X affecting the progress of production in relation to a prediction item is analyzed (S11). Next, a model F for determining the progress Y from the factor X is applied (S12) to predict the progress Y (S13). At that time, the progress Y can be obtained by the equation Y=FX. The model F can use the foregoing multiple regression equation. The progress Y can be expressed by an advance or a delay with respect to a scheduled development date. The prediction item is developed to difficulty level in relation to progress of production (S14)”. Notably, the result of our computation of element patterns, is used in this process, as explained in [0023] regarding the previously computed factor X, disclosing the comparison aspect. Support for viewing this modelling as a process is found in [0038], explaining Fig. 9, where we can graphically depict the result of our modelling various processes, as the different models are shown to represent distinct entities.
and extracts characteristics of the process.
In [0039], “ After the development probabilities are determined with respect to development delays for the respective processes A, B, . . . , H, I, and J, the arithmetic operation (development probability).times.(production capability) can be performed to determine expected values for target values in the month of N and display the same on the bar graph. The expected values can be provided with ranges according to the difficulty level ranks illustrated in FIG. 6, for example. In addition, the development probabilities (development risks) with respect to the expected values can be numerically displayed as success rates with respect to the target values in the month of N”. Our characteristics here are our derived outputs from the modelling workflow, such as expected values with probabilities.
Himono combined with Otta, Stummer and Nonaka teaches a system meant to analyze factors pertaining to the production of some output. Kimoto teaches a system for analyzing production in an industrial context. Each reference discloses means to analyze factors pertaining to the production of some output in an industrial context. Extending the modelling workflow of Kimoto to the analytical system of Himono combined with Otta, Stummer and Nonaka is applicable as they are both pertained to analyzing and providing insights on data in an industrial context.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the process generation as taught in Kimoto and apply that to the system of Himono combined with Otta, Stummer and Nonaka. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that the ability to view the empirical benefit of adjusting variables would enrich the simulatory capabilities of Himono combined with Otta, Stummer and Nonaka.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 THEODORE L XIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/THEODORE XIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3623
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623