DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 5/26/2026. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 12, 13 and 15-20 have been amended. Claims 3, 6, 7, 11 and 14 have been canceled. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 12, 13 and 15-20 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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, 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 12, 13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, method claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8-10 are directed to a series of steps, system claims 12, 13, 15 and 16 are directed to computing system comprising a processor, and system claims 17-20 are directed to a first site device; a second site device; and a processor. Thus the claims are directed to a process, machine, and machine, respectively.
Under step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite managing a well (hydrocarbon) site, including acquiring, determining, receiving, determining, and operating steps.
The limitations of acquiring, determining, generating and operating, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activity concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Specifically, the claim elements recite acquiring sensor data associated with operation of a gas lift system associated with an artificially lifted well of the well site; determining, based on the sensor data, emission data corresponding to emissions associated operation of the artificially lifted well and resource usage data corresponding to resource usage associated with operation of the gas lift system, wherein the resource usage data corresponds to resource usage of one or more chemicals injected into a flow of hydrocarbons within the artificially lifted well by the gas lift system; receiving a control objective for the artificially lifted well, the control objective associated with bringing the emissions associated with the operation of the artificially lifted well below an emission threshold and bringing the resource usage of the one or more chemicals below a resource usage threshold; determining, based on the emission data and the resource usage data, one or more control decisions for one or more controllable elements of the well site that causes the artificially lifted well to achieve the control objective; and operating the one or more controllable elements of the well site according to the one or more control decisions such that the artificially lifted well achieves the control objective.
That is, other than reciting at least one sensing unit, one or more controllable elements, and a processor (in system claims 12-20), the claim limitations merely cover managing personal behavior, including following rules or instructions, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims include at least one sensing unit, one or more controllable elements, and a processor. The at least one sensing unit, one or more controllable elements, and a processor in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of at least one sensing unit, one or more controllable elements, and a processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
None of the dependent claims recite additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2, 4 and 5 recite additional generating, operating, obtaining, minimizing, determining, and generating steps. Claims 8-10 recite additional generating, and operating steps and further describe the emission data and the resource usage. Similarly, dependent claims 13, 15, 16 and 18-20 recite additional details that further restrict/define the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, at least one sensing unit, one or more controllable elements, and a processor.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
In addition, as discussed in paragraph 0099 of the specification, “The controller 1102 includes processing circuitry 1104 including a processor 1106 and a memory 1108. The processor 1106 can be a general purpose or specific purpose processor, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), one or more field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), a group of processing components, or other suitable processing components. The processor 1106 may be configured to execute computer code and/or instructions stored in the memory 1108 or received from other computer readable media (e.g., CDROM, network storage, a remote server, etc.).”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 12, 13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Menon et al (US 20240403895 A1).
As per claim 1, Menon et al disclose a method for managing a well site (i.e., FIG. 1 illustrates a schematic diagram of an example hydrocarbon production system 10 where hydrocarbon products, such as crude oil and natural gas, may be extracted from the ground, stored, transported, processed, distributed, and the like, ¶ 0038), the method comprising:
acquiring, from at least one sensing unit associated with the well site, sensor data associated with operation of a gas lift system associated with an artificially lifted well of the well site (i.e., the sustainability platform system 72 may send commands to equipment (e.g., lights, pumps, wellheads, artificial lifts), such as via IoT devices 44, to adjust operations based on the recommended action plan 90 to improve the sustainability parameters associated with the enterprise, ¶ 0059, wherein The real-time sources 108 may include data provided by sensors, devices, and other data sources via a network connection. As such, the real-time sources 108 may include the IoT devices 44, as well as any smart component that may be part of the enterprise. In addition, the real-time sources 108 may include routers and other data collection point devices that may receive data (e.g., sensor data) from other systems, ¶ 0064);
determining, based on the sensor data, emission data corresponding to emissions associated with operation of the artificially lifted well and resource usage data corresponding to resource usage associated with operation of the gas lift system (i.e., drilling activity workflow may include planning of rig activities for proposing a drilling plan accounting for the well profile, well activities, emission forecasts, and the like. As such, the enterprise production data may also include the real-time monitoring of emissions from rig activities, such as power consumption by controllers (e.g., PLCs) and fuel consumption based on data from flow meters. In some embodiments, GHG sensors may be positioned at various locations, ¶ 0107), wherein the resource usage data corresponds to resource usage of one or more chemicals injected into a flow of hydrocarbons within the artificially lifted well by the gas lift system (i.e., Using the collected data over time, the sustainability platform system may determine baseline sustainability parameters (e.g., carbon footprint, waste levels, water usage) for the entire operational flow of the enterprise, ¶ 0029, wherein The drilling operations may include drilling the wellbore 28, injecting drilling fluids into the wellbore 28, performing casing operations within the wellbore 28, exploratory operations measuring the viability of the wellbore 28, extraction operations, ¶ 0040);
receiving a control objective for the artificially lifted well, the control objective associated with bringing the emissions associated with the operation of the artificially lifted well below an emission threshold (i.e., detected emissions could trigger a re-optimization of the implemented action plans 90 as described herein in response to a detectable change or threshold change in detected emission levels (e.g., methane) above a set threshold, ¶ 0156) and bringing the resource usage of the one or more chemicals below a resource usage threshold (i.e., Enterprises may generally move to improve sustainability parameters by focusing on one or more of increasing energy efficiencies, reducing water usage, curbing GHG emissions, decreasing waste amounts, and the like, ¶ 0052);
determining, based on the emission data and the resource usage data, one or more control decisions for one or more controllable elements of the well site that causes the artificially lifted well to achieve the control objective; and operating the one or more controllable elements of the well site according to the one or more control decisions such that the artificially lifted well achieves the control objective (i.e., the sustainability platform system 72 may send commands to equipment (e.g., lights, pumps, wellheads, artificial lifts), such as via IoT devices 44, to adjust operations based on the recommended action plan 90 to improve the sustainability parameters associated with the enterprise, ¶ 0059).
As per claim 2, Menon et al disclose generating display data corresponding to the emission data and the resource usage data; and operating a display device to provide the display data to a user and operating the display device to provide the control decision to the user (i.e., data acquired via the I/O ports and/or data analyzed by the processor 154 may be presented on the display 162, such that the sustainability platform system 72 may present designs for hydrocarbon sites (e.g., of a hydrocarbon production system 10) for view. In certain embodiments, the display 162 may be a touch screen display or any other type of display capable of receiving inputs from an operator, ¶ 0092).
As per claim 4, Menon et al disclose obtaining an objective function that defines emission costs corresponding to the emissions associated with the operation of the artificially lifted well and resource usage costs corresponding to the resource usage of the one or more chemicals injected into a flow of hydrocarbons within the artificially lifted well by the gas lift system as a function of control decisions for controllable elements of the well site (i.e., the sustainability target data may include energy, emissions, water, and waste objectives. However, a user may select to optimize for the emissions portion of the sustainability target data. The emissions may be the sustainability variable data received, ¶ 0138); and minimizing the objective function to determine the one or more control decision that results in a minimum sum of the emission costs and the resource usage costs (i.e., selection of which sustainability variable to optimize could be executed in a number of ways in addition to manual selection by the user, as described above. Briefly, manual selection would enable the user to specify which parameter to optimize, such as minimum cost, maximum emission reduction (reduction in greenhouse gas volume), or maximum commodity production, ¶ 0184).
As per claim 5, Menon et al disclose determining, based on the sensor data, emission intensity data corresponding to an emission intensity associated with the operation of the artificially lifted well and resource usage intensity data corresponding to a resource usage intensity associated with the one or more chemicals injected into the flow of hydrocarbons within the artificially lifted well by the gas lift system (e.g., carbon footprint, waste levels, water usage) for the entire operational flow of the enterprise, ¶ 0029, wherein The drilling operations may include drilling the wellbore 28, injecting drilling fluids into the wellbore 28, performing casing operations within the wellbore 28, exploratory operations measuring the viability of the wellbore 28, extraction operations, ¶ 0040); generating intensity display data corresponding to the emission intensity data and the resource usage intensity data; and operating the display device to provide the intensity display data to the user (i.e., the GHG report may include a baseline year for tracking the GHG emissions and a year-by-year (e.g., or other suitable time period) analysis that presents GHG emissions data for each year since the baseline, showing absolute emissions and intensity metrics (e.g., emissions per unit of production or revenue). The GHG report may include an emissions breakdown portion that indicates the emissions data according to source, ¶ 0227).
As per claim 8, Menon et al disclose generating display data corresponding to the emission data and the resource usage data; and operating a display device to provide the display data to a user (i.e., data acquired via the I/O ports and/or data analyzed by the processor 154 may be presented on the display 162, such that the sustainability platform system 72 may present designs for hydrocarbon sites (e.g., of a hydrocarbon production system 10) for view. In certain embodiments, the display 162 may be a touch screen display or any other type of display capable of receiving inputs from an operator, ¶ 0092), wherein the display device is operated to provide a live dashboard associated with the display data, the live dashboard indicating live emissions associated with the operation of the artificially lifted well and live resource usage of the one or more chemicals injected into a flow of hydrocarbons within the artificially lifted well by the gas lift system (i.e., Using the collected data over time, the sustainability platform system may determine baseline sustainability parameters (e.g., carbon footprint, waste levels, water usage) for the entire operational flow of the enterprise, ¶ 0029, wherein The drilling operations may include drilling the wellbore 28, injecting drilling fluids into the wellbore 28, performing casing operations within the wellbore 28, exploratory operations measuring the viability of the wellbore 28, extraction operations, ¶ 0040, wherein the sustainability platform system 72 may receive greenhouse gas (GHG) emission data for the enterprise operations. The GHG emission data may be provided by or determined based on real time data acquired by real-time sources 108, ¶ 0103).
As per claim 9, Menon et al disclose generating display data corresponding to the emission data and the resource usage data (i.e., data acquired via the I/O ports and/or data analyzed by the processor 154 may be presented on the display 162, such that the sustainability platform system 72 may present designs for hydrocarbon sites (e.g., of a hydrocarbon production system 10) for view. In certain embodiments, the display 162 may be a touch screen display or any other type of display capable of receiving inputs from an operator, ¶ 0092, wherein Using the collected data over time, the sustainability platform system may determine baseline sustainability parameters (e.g., carbon footprint, waste levels, water usage) for the entire operational flow of the enterprise, ¶ 0029, wherein The drilling operations may include drilling the wellbore 28, injecting drilling fluids into the wellbore 28, performing casing operations within the wellbore 28, exploratory operations measuring the viability of the wellbore 28, extraction operations, ¶ 0040), wherein the display data includes a first portion of the emission data and the resource usage data associated with the gas lift system and a second portion of the emission data and the resource usage data associated with another device of the well site (i.e., the upstream system 12 may include a number of components or facilities that correspond to wells, processing facilities, collection components, distribution networks, and the like. For example, as shown in FIG. 1, the upstream system 12 may include a number of wells 22 disposed within a geological formation 24, ¶ 0040).
As per claim 10, Menon et al disclose the emission data and the resource usage data are forecasted over a future time period (i.e., The drilling activity workflow may include planning of rig activities for proposing a drilling plan accounting for the well profile, well activities, emission forecasts, ¶ 0107); and operating the one or more controllable elements according to the one or more control decisions over the future time period results in a sum of (i) an emission cost associated with the emissions over the future time period and (ii) a resource usage cost associated with the resource usage over the future time period does not exceed a cost threshold (i.e., The drilling activity workflow may include planning of rig activities for proposing a drilling plan accounting for the well profile, well activities, emission forecasts, and the like. As such, the enterprise production data may also include the real-time monitoring of emissions from rig activities, such as power consumption by controllers (e.g., PLCs) and fuel consumption based on data from flow meters, ¶ 0107, wherein an economic analysis may be initiated before the action plans 90 are determined to consider forecasted business activities, technology costs, and other prioritized areas, ¶ 0117, wherein the sustainability platform system 72 may forecast or predict expected sustainability parameters over time for the enterprise. The expected sustainability parameters may include the sustainability optimization parameters, ¶ 0193).
Claims 12, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 and 8, respectively, since they are the system claims corresponding to the method claims.
Claims 17-20 are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 and 8, respectively, since they are the system claims corresponding to the method claims.
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant argues Applicant respectfully submits that the steps recited in amended claims 1, 12, and 17 do not cover organizing human activity. Specifically, Applicant submits that at least the steps of: "operating the one or more controllable elements of the hydrocarbon site according to the one or more control decisions such that the artificially lifted well achieves the control objective," is not directed to organizing human activity. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that these features are not related to the abstract idea of organizing human activity, in their broadest reasonable interpretation, as alleged by the Examiner.
The Office Action alleges that the claims do "not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, the claims are directed to an abstract idea." (Office Action p. 4). However, "the way in which the additional elements use or interact with the exception may integrate it into a practical application. Accordingly, the additional limitations should not be evaluated in a vacuum, completely separate from the recited judicial exception. Instead, the analysis should take into consideration all the claim limitations and how those limitations interact and impact each other when evaluating whether the exception is integrated into a practical application." MPEP 2106.04(d)(III).
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the USPTO 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the Berkheimer judicial exception. When the exception is so integrated, then the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and is eligible, concluding the eligibility analysis.
However, even assuming arguendo that they do recite an abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (which Applicant does not concede), independent claims 1, 12, and 17 are patent eligible under Step 2B. The memo released by the USPTO on April 19, 2018 regarding the Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. decision ("Berkheimer memo") states that "an examiner should conclude that an element (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry," which "must be based upon a factual determination." Specifically, this factual determination must be based on one of the following: (1) "[a] citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)," (2) "[a] citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)," (3) "[a] citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)," or (4) "[a] statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)." Berkheimer memo, p. 3-4.
The Office Action asserts that "There isn't any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment." (Office Action p. 5). However, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.07(a)(II) "Examiners should keep in mind that the courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014)."-13-
Applicant respectfully submits that even if the "additional elements" are not "sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception" (which Applicant does not concede), the claimed methods and computer-implemented processes recite significantly more than any alleged judicial exception. Specifically, the claims recite limitations including at least: "operating the one or more controllable elements of the hydrocarbon site according to the one or more control decisions such that the artificially lifted well achieves the control objective." (Emphasis added). Applicant respectfully submits that at least these limitations recite more than mere collection and receipt of data. In particular, the claims recite a non-conventional and non-generic method and computer implemented processes that advantageously causes an artificially lifted well to achieve a control objective. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As described in paragraph 0022 of the specification, “As a result, an operator of the first well device and the second well device may compare the resource usage and the emissions associated with the first well device and the second well device to determine how to change operation of the first well device and/or the second well device to reduce combined emissions and/or combined resource usage of the first well device and the second well device.” Paragraph 0023 goes on to recite that “The controller may operate the display device to display the optimal control decisions to an operator of the well site such that the operator may operate the well site according to the optimal control decisions.”
Moreover, paragraph 0024 recites that “In some embodiments, the control decisions are output to the well site or multiple of the well sites for use in operating the well site or multiple of the well sites. For example, the control decisions may be output to the well site automatically or upon receiving a user input from the operator of the well site.”
Additionally, paragraph 0057 recites that “Advantageously, system 400 can allow for operators to adjust operations of the ALS 100 of the well sites 28 to reduce the emissions associated with the operation of the ALS 100. Additionally or alternatively, system 400 may advantageously allow for operators to compare the emissions associated with the operation of the ALSs 100 of multiple of the well sites 28 and operate each of the ALSs 100 with according to different operational parameters to minimize an overall amount of the emissions associated with the operation of the ALSs 100 of the multiple of the well sites 28.”
Similarly, the claim language recites “receiving a control objective for the artificially lifted well”, and “generating display data corresponding to the emission data and the resource usage data operating a display device to provide the display data to a user; and operating the display device to provide the control decision to the user.”
As such, and contrary to Applicant’s assertion, other than reciting at least one sensing unit, one or more controllable elements, and a processor (in system claims 12-20), the claim limitations merely cover managing personal behavior, including following rules or instructions, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Besides the abstract idea, the claims include at least one sensing unit, one or more controllable elements, and a processor.
The at least one sensing unit, one or more controllable elements, and a processor in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use computer components as a tool (i.e., at least one sensing unit, one or more controllable elements, and a processor). There is no change to the computers and/or other technology recited in the claims, thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
With respect to the Berkheimer court case, in a step 2B analysis, an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds 1) an explanation based on an express statement in the specification (e.g., citation to a relevant portion of the specification) that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
As an initial point, the rejection does not recite “well-understood, routine or conventional,” in step 2B of the analysis, so Applicant’s arguments are moot. Additionally, and contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the specification indeed provides an express statement that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional elements.
Specifically, paragraph 0026 of the specification recites that “The computing device 26 may be incorporated into any physical device (e.g., the industrial device 16 and 18) or may be implemented as a stand-alone computing device (e.g., general purpose computer), such as a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a mobile computing device, or the like. Moreover, the communication data to and from the computing device 26 may include various safeguards to ensure privacy and security of the communication link (e.g., by encrypting the communication data, by requiring an authentication of a user before granting access to the communication data, by using a firewall to restrict access to the communication data, etc.).” As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Applicant also argues Menon does not teach or suggest the combination of features recited in amended claim 1. For example, Menon does not teach a method of managing a well site that includes "determining, based on the sensor data, emission data corresponding to emissions associated with operation of the artificially lifted well and resource usage data corresponding to resource usage associated with operation of the gas lift system, wherein the resource usage data corresponds to resource usage of one or more chemicals injected into a flow of hydrocarbons within the artificially lifted well by the gas lift system." Menon does not describe determining resource usage associated with operation of the gas lift system where the resource usage data corresponds to resource usage of one or more chemicals injected into a flow of hydrocarbons within the artificially lifted well by the gas lift system. In fact, Menon does not mention artificially lifted wells that include chemical injections. Thus, Menon does not teach a method of managing a well site that includes "determining, based on the sensor data, emission data corresponding to emissions associated with operation of the artificially lifted well and resource usage data corresponding to resource usage associated with operation of the gas lift system, wherein the resource usage data corresponds to resource usage of one or more chemicals injected into a flow of hydrocarbons within the artificially lifted well by the gas lift system." The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, as described in the updated rejection, Menon et al indeed disclose Applicant’s amended claim language.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p.
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 (Rob) 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.
/ANDRE D BOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 August 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights