DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception under the subject matter eligibility two-part statutory analysis, as provided below.
Regarding Step 1,
Step 1 addresses whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter according to MPEP §2106.03. The claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. Independent claim 1, also representative of independent claims 9 for the same abstract features, is underlined below which recite the following claim limitations, as an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 11 and 16: A method for asset analysis:
receiving first input data for a plurality of first assets; receiving second input data for a plurality of second assets; receiving a request to screen one or more of the second assets, wherein the request is to detect an anomaly and/or to improve a performance of one or more of the second assets; selecting one or more screening tools based upon the request determining an order to apply the one or more selected screening tools based upon the first input data, the second input data, and the request; and screening one or more of the second assets using the one or more selected screening tools in the order,
detecting an anomaly in performance of the one or more of the plurality of second assets;
improving a performance of the one or more of the plurality of second assets; constructing, one or more queries to fetch data based on the request;
the one or more of the plurality of screening tools comprising: a first screening tool configured to detect at least one of: the anomaly or the performance; a second screening tool configured to determine a cause of at least one of: the anomaly or the performance; a third screening tool configured to determine at least one of: a remedy for the anomaly or improve the performance; and a fourth screening tool configured to predict an outcome after the at least one of the remedy or the improvement is implemented, the prediction comprising an economic analysis;
enforcing an execution order across the selected one or more of the plurality of screening tools, the execution order prioritizing less computationally heavy or coarser screening methods before executing more computationally heavy or finer screening methods, the execution order being determined based on the first input data, the second input data, the request, and at least one of: a constraint, time, or compute resources, the execution order being further determined based on one or more of: an amount of time, detail, or effort to implement the remedy or to improve the performance, an expense to implement the remedy or to improve the performance, a type of the remedy or the improvement, a likelihood of a risk of the anomaly, an impact of the remedy, or weights, custom rules, or equations to calculate an indicator for the execution order; and
screening one or more of the plurality of second assets using the selected one or more selected of the plurality of screening tools in the execution order.
The underlined claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas, and includes at least managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for managing personal behavior/relationships or interactions between people because the claimed steps recite asset analysis by screening (oil well) assets according to rules and screening for detecting an anomaly or improve performance. Accordingly, since the claimed invention describes a process that falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application according to MPEP §2106.04(d). Claims 1 and 9 include the following additional elements:
A computing system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory system comprising one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising:
incorporating the LLM into a computing system, the computing system, the computing system comprising a plurality of screening tools;
building or training a large language model (LLM) based upon the first input data; using the LLM.
calling, one or more of the plurality of screening tools via one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) based on the request,
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components.
The claimed invention merely provides an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with generic computer processes and components recited at a high-level of generality (receiving, storing, determining, and comparing data) using computer instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and merely “apply it” without any meaningful technological limits or any improvement to technology, technical field or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Additionally, receiving first input data for a plurality of first assets; receiving second input data for a plurality of second assets; receiving a request to screen one or more of the second assets amounts to data gathering and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, thus does not add any meaningful limitations, and since receiving, storing and transmitting data is considered one of the most basic functions of a computer, these additional elements are deemed as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The legal precedent in Electric Power Group and Ultramercial cited in MPEP 2106.05(g) indicate that selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis and display, and requiring a request from a user to view an advertisement and restricting public access, are all insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, the additional elements fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into any practical application since they do not impose any non-generic meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B,
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05.
As discussed above, the claimed additional elements recited above amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” using generic computer components and functionality. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components are insufficient to provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the claimed additional elements merely limit the abstract idea to be executed in a computer environment, thus do nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Additionally, re-evaluating the insignificant extra-solution activities listed above, it is determined that they are also well-understood, routine, and conventional, as well. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The legal precedent in Ultramercial, Versata, Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that storing and retrieving information in memory, as well as receipt and transmission of information over a computer network, and updating an activity log are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions claimed in a generic manner, as is the case here. See also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (data gathering and displaying are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities) and also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive”).
Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements are claimed at a high-level of generality and add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of the claimed limitations is equally generic and otherwise held to be abstract since the combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components operating in their ordinary and generic capacities of what is typically expected of computers receiving, storing and updating data, and receiving and transmitting data between generic computer devices. The claimed invention is not patent eligible because the additional elements are merely invoked as tools to execute the abstract idea and thus are insufficient to amount to an inventive concept significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for dependent claims, they merely further narrow and reiterate the same abstract ideas for storing and updating data, and receiving and transmitting data using generic data storage and transmittal techniques with the same additional elements as recited above which provide nothing more than applying the abstract idea using generic computer technology components. Furthermore dependent claims comprise the following additional elements: displaying a result of screening [displaying data]. These additional elements do not provide any improvement to technology, technical field or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and at best simply applying the abstract idea executed in a general-purpose computer environment. Therefore the dependent claims are also directed to ineligible subject matter since they do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Thus, after considering all claim elements in Claims 1-20 both individually and as an ordered combination, it has been determined that the claimed invention as a whole, is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention since nothing in the claim limitations provide significantly more than the abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and arguments are considered however, they are unpersuasive.
For 101, enforcing an execution order across the selected one or more of the plurality of screening tools, the execution order prioritizing less computationally heavy or coarser screening methods before executing more computationally heavy or finer screening methods, the execution order being determined based on the first input data, the second input data, the request, and at least one of: a constraint, time, or compute resources, the execution order being further determined based on one or more of: an amount of time, detail, or effort to implement the remedy or to improve the performance, an expense to implement the remedy or to improve the performance, a type of the remedy or the improvement, a likelihood of a risk of the anomaly, an impact of the remedy, or weights, custom rules, or equations to calculate an indicator for the execution order; and screening one or more of the plurality of second assets using the selected one or more selected of the plurality of screening tools in the execution order is not patent eligible. Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements are claimed at a high-level of generality and add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of the claimed limitations is equally generic and otherwise held to be abstract since the combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components operating in their ordinary and generic capacities of what is typically expected of computers receiving, storing and updating data, and receiving and transmitting data between generic computer devices. The claimed invention is not patent eligible because the additional elements are merely invoked as tools to execute the abstract idea and thus are insufficient to amount to an inventive concept significantly more than the judicial exception.
Relevant Prior Art
The relevant prior art made of record below is not relied upon but considered pertinent
to applicant's disclosure and can be found in the current/previous PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Relevant Prior Art References and Non-Patent Literature
US20210166184 Oil field resources are allocated using machine learning and optimization. The job schedule is generated using the set of priorities. An updated job schedule is presented based on the update to the priority.
US20220114302 Reservoir performance system
US20230017966 Well Construction Equipment Framework
US20190188584 Computer System And Method For Building And Deploying Models Predicting Plant Asset Failure
US20190187685 Methods and systems for data collection in tanks with future status prediction and load balancing
US20210133607 Systems and methods for self-learning artificial intelligence of things devices and services
US20210042634 Representation learning in massive petroleum network systems
US20200370423 Controller optimization via reinforcement learning on asset
US20220269853 Domain-specific language interpreter and interactive visual interface for rapid screening
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The relevant prior art made of record not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the current and/or previous PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to LAURA YESILDAG whose direct telephone number is (571) 270-5066 and work schedule is generally Monday-Friday, from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
In order to receive any email communication from the Examiner, filing for official authorization for Internet Communication is required. The authorization form can be accessed at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
Examiner interviews can be requested by telephone or are available using the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, LYNDA JASMIN, can be reached at (571) 272-6782 for any urgent matter that needs immediate attention. Additional information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the USPTO Patent Center. For more information about the USPTO Patent Center, please access https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ The Patent Center is available to all users for electronic filing and management of patent applications and can be contacted for questions at 1-866-217-9197 or 571-272-4100.
/LAURA YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights