DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-5 and 9-18 have been considered but art not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, the Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a mental process and further “The specification describes what these operations entail in practice. Signals are sliced into moving time windows and spectra are calculated by Fourier transform…Spectral power densities are then aggregated into discrete bins and may be log transformed or normalized relative to the highest spectral component. Detection is performed by a discriminative system operating on those spectral feature…”
The limitations of “transforming the data series into a frequency domain representation using Fourier transforms; processing the frequency domain representations by aggregating them into discrete frequency bins; applying a detection method to the processed frequency domain representations, wherein the detection method comprises a discriminative system based on processed spectral features; and identifying a rig state selected from a group consisting of rig heave and downlinking from analysis of the frequency domain data representations” are abstract ideas because nothing in the claims preclude the recited steps in the claims from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. For example, the step of “transforming the data series…using Fourier transforms” and “processing the frequency domain representations by aggregating them into discrete frequency bins” are merely mathematical calculation which can be performed by a human using pen and paper. The step of “identifying a rig state selected from a group consisting of rig heave and downlinking from analysis of the frequency domain data representations” is can be performed in the mind because a human can mentally analyze data to identify, in their mind, “a rig state”. The specification’s details of these steps, as highlighted above, does not prevent the claimed limitations do not take the claim out of the mental process grouping because the disclosure is merely discussing how the data is being processed, none of which is actually recited in the claims. Additionally, the Applicant states that “The specification further states that the sensor sampling rates must be at least twice the highest frequency component under consideration in order to avoid aliasing…” but the claims does not recite any limitations which suggest this very specific sampling rate nor do they recite any limitations which suggest this technical problem. The claims recite very generic data gathering and processing steps without any specific technical solution to a technical problem. The recitation of “providing the identified rig state to an operational model that modifies a drilling operation of the drilling rig based on the identified rig state.” is very generic and does not necessarily result in a physical transformation of the drilling operation/system because this limitation can be interpreted as merely adjusting a “threshold” of a drilling parameter which may not even transform the claimed “drilling operation”.
The Applicant further argues that “A person cannot practically compute Welch spectra over successive sliding windows of a real time sensor stream, aggregate spectral power densities into frequency bins, and evaluate an ensemble of gradient boosted trees at each time step, and cannot do so at the rate at which the data arrive from the rig, which is the circumstance in which the claimed method operates…” The claims do not positively require any of the above aforementioned elements in the claim. The claims are directed to very generic data gathering and processing steps which can be performed by a human in the mind or using pen and paper.
The Applicant argues that “Applicant does not rely on the recitation of generic computing elements to remove the claims from the mental process grouping… Applicant's position is that the recited operations are themselves outside”. The recitation of the elements of “a processor” and “a memory coupled to the processor…” recited in claim 18 are generic computing elements which perform the abstract concepts. The recited operations are not outside the grouping because nothing in the recited operations precludes them from being performed by a human in the mind or using pen and paper.
The Applicant further argues that “Each limitation of claim 1 recites an affirmative act, and claim 1 as amended recites receiving time series sensor data from a real time data system located on a drilling rig and providing the identified rig state to an operational model that modifies a drilling operation of the drilling rig based on the identified rig state”
The claims do not reflect any physical transformation/improvement to the state of the art of drilling. As stated above, claims recite very generic data gathering and processing steps without any specific technical solution to a technical problem. Additionally, “receiving time series sensor data from a real time data system located on a drilling rig” merely amounts to data gathering because this step uses sensors to measure data to perform the abstract idea. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and “providing the identified rig state to an operational model that modifies a drilling operation of the drilling rig based on the identified rig state” amounts to “apply it” because this element contains mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer, e.g. a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
The Applicant further states that “Claim 18 as amended recites a processor, a memory storing instructions that cause the system to perform the recited operations and to provide the identified rig state to that operational model, and a display device that presents the output of the identified rig state to a user.”
Again, the recitation of the elements of “a processor” and “a memory coupled to the processor…” recited in claim 18 are generic computing elements which perform the abstract concepts. The recited operations are not outside the grouping because nothing in the recited operations precludes them from being performed by a human in the mind or using pen and paper. Additionally, “a display device that presents the output of the identified rig state to a user” is post-solution activity and the courts have held that merely displaying data does not add significantly more to the judicial exception. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The recitation of “providing the identified rig state to an operational model that modifies a drilling operation of the drilling rig based on the identified rig state.” in the claims is very generic and does not necessarily result in a physical transformation/improvement of the drilling operation/system because this limitation can be interpreted as merely adjusting a “threshold” of a drilling parameter which may not even transform the claimed “drilling operation”. Example of a physical transformation is varying WOB/ torque or halting drilling in response to the “identified rig state”.
The Applicant further argues that “The Office Action's conclusion that the subject matter of claim 2 is well understood, routine, and conventional is supported only by a citation to Symantec, which addressed the screening of electronic messages and did not address the detection of communication between downhole tools and a surface computing system. No publication or express statement in the specification is identified, and no official notice is taken.”
Claim 2 requires “wherein the rig state is the downlinking rig state, and wherein the downlinking rig state comprises a state where communication occurs between sensors in downhole tools and a surface computing system.” which merely requires transmission of data between sensors and a surface computing system. Transmission of data, whether from downhole sensors to surface computer or vice versa, is not an unconventional concept in the art. “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016). MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding claims 3, 4 and 13, the Applicant argues that “Although the absence of these limitations from Zhan is not dispositive of whether they were well understood, routine, and conventional, the Office's prior-art findings underscore the absence of record evidence establishing that the claimed combination was widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant field”.
The claims are not “well understood, routine, and conventional” but rather add to the abstract idea. Claims 3 recites “wherein the rig state is the rig heave state.” Which further adds to the abstract idea of “identifying a rig state selected from a group consisting of rig heave and downlinking from analysis”. The step of “identifying…” can be performed in the mind because a human can mentally analyze data and determine, in their mind, that the data reflects that “the rig state is the rig heave state”. Similarly, nothing in claim 4 precludes the recited step of “identifying intervals without active heave compensation and aggregating data from the identified intervals into frequency bins.” from being performed in the mind because a can mentally “identify interval without active heave compensation” and further can perform “aggregating data from the identified intervals into frequency bins” using pen and paper. The limitations of 13 are directed to abstract idea because a human can mentally perform the step of “suppressing anomaly warnings during the identified rig state” by choosing to ignore the “anomaly warnings”.
Claims 5-9 and 17 are directed to abstract ideas because nothing in the claims preclude the recited steps from being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper.
For at least the above reasons, the rejection to the claims will be maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The Applicant’s argument’s regarding claims 1 and 18 are persuasive. The rejection the claims have been withdrawn.
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 1-5 and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject
matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-17 are directed to a method (process) and claim 18 is directed to a system (machine). As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis
in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claims 1 and 18 recite abstract limitations including (or substantially similar to): “transforming the data series into a frequency domain representation using Fourier transforms; processing the frequency domain representations for by aggregating them into discrete frequency bins; applying a detection method to the processed frequency domain representations, wherein the detection method comprises a discriminative system based on processed spectral features; and identifying a rig state selected from a group consisting of rig heave and downlinking from analysis of the frequency domain data representations.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and
paper, and therefore recite mental processes. The mere recitation of generic computing elements do not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Mental processes cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as well as decision-making steps which encompasses the limitations listed above. The claims do not require any action as currently worded. Thus, the claims recite abstract ideas.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of
the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural
phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners
evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a
practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of “receiving time series of individual sensor data from real time data system located on a drilling rig”, and “providing the identified rig state to an operational model that modifies a drilling operation of the drilling rig based on the identified rig state”. Claim 18 recites the additional elements of “a processor”, “a memory coupled to the processor”, “receive time series of individual sensor data from a real time data system located on a drilling rig”, “a display device that presents output of the identified rig state to a user” and “provide the identified rig state to an operational model that modifies a drilling operation of the drilling rig based on the identified rig state”.
The recitation of “receiving time series of individual sensor data from real time data system located on a drilling rig”, “a processor”, “a memory coupled to the processor” ,“a display device that presents output of the identified rig state to a user” and “providing the identified rig state to an operational model that modifies a drilling operation of the drilling rig based on the identified rig state” amount to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into practical applications because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
The recitation of (or substantially similar to) “receiving time series of individual sensor data from real time data system located on a drilling rig” amounts to mere data gathering because this step uses sensors to measure data to perform the abstract idea. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The recitation of “a processor” and “a memory coupled to the processor” merely amounts to “apply it” because these elements contain mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
The recitation of “a display device that presents output of the identified rig state to a user” is post-solution activity and the courts have held that merely displaying data does not add significantly more to the judicial exception. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The recitation of “providing the identified rig state to an operational model that modifies a drilling operation of the drilling rig based on the identified rig state” because this step merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea which is analogous to “A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair”. See In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add
significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the rig state is the downlinking rig state, and wherein the downlinking rig state comprises a state where communication occurs between sensors in downhole tools and a surface computing system” which is well-understood, routine and conventional because this step merely requires transmission of data and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016). MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, similar to claim 1, this claim does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Claims 3-17 further add to the abstract ideas because nothing in the claims preclude the recited steps in the claims from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. For example, the recitation of “aggregating intervals without active heave compensation into frequency bins” (claim 4) , “the preferred action is to suppress anomaly warnings” (claim 14) and “recording the start and end time of the detected rig state” (claim 17) can be done by an operator using pen and paper. Furthermore, the recitation of “the preferred action is to suppress anomaly warnings” (claim 13) is a mental step because an operator can mentally decide to “suppress anomaly warnings”. Therefore, similar to claim 1, these claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and are not significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 9-18 are not allowed due to the rejection above under 101; however, these claims have not been rejected under prior art.
The most relevant art to claims 1 and 18 is Zhan (US Publication No. 20230175394).
Regarding claim 1, Zhan teaches a method for recognizing specific rig states in oilfield drilling and completion operations ( monitoring the real-time condition of the PDC cutters in the drill bit during drilling; pp[0019], [0023]) comprising:
receiving time series of individual sensor data (The one or more sensors may be embedded sensors or systems in the PDC drill bit cutter substrate with different types of sensors that are used to measure real-time wear and dimension changes of PDC cutters and related drill bits; pp[0032])) from an external real time data system located on a drilling rig (a telemetry transceiver (130B) may be installed in the BHA (123) of a drilling system (100) to transmit data and signals through a telemetry channel (132) from the BHA (123) to a telemetry transceiver (130A) located on the drilling rig (102). The telemetry channel (132) may use acoustic signals transmitted through the drilling fluid; pp[0024]);
transforming the data series into a frequency domain representation using Fourier transforms (Processing the data may involve aggregating the data from different on-cutter PDC sensors, synchronizing the data, and transforming the data (e.g., using Fourier transforms) to remove noise; pp[0053]);
Zhan is silent regarding processing the frequency domain representations for by aggregating them into discrete frequency bins ;applying a detection method to the processed frequency domain representations, wherein the detection method comprises a discriminative system based on processed spectral features. identifying a rig state selected from a group consisting of rig heave and downlinking from analysis of the frequency domain data representations providing the identified rig state to an operational model that modifies a drilling operation of the drilling rig based on the identified rig state.
It would not be obvious to modify Zhan with the above features as it would require significant redesign to the method of Zhan. Furthermore, no prior art was found, alone or in combination Zhan to teach the above features. Therefore, such modifications would be based on impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Zhan does not read on claim 18 for similar reasons as claim 1 above.
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 Lamia Quaim whose telephone number is (469)295-9199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM - 6PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/LAMIA QUAIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights