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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
CLAIMS 1-7 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez et al. (WO 2022/200601 A1) in view of Islam (US 2022/200601 A1) and Petersen et al., “Abundance of microbial genes associated with nitrogen cycling as indices of biogeochemical process rates across a vegetation gradient in Alaska.”
Ramirez et al. ‘601 (“Ramirez”) discloses a method of selecting a treatment recommendation to improve sustainable farming of a field (“soil-related sustainability score,” abstract), the method comprising:
CLAIM 1
measuring biologic content in field soil (cl. 6);
using the biologic content to determine an ability of the soil to sequester greenhouse gas (p. 24, ll. 1-5)1; and
using the ability of the soil to sequester greenhouse gas to select a treatment recommendation to increase the ability of the soil to sequester greenhouse gas (p. 6, l. 30-p. 7, l. 4; steps D)2.
Ramirez fails to teach expressly the step of obtaining the soil from the field.
Islam ‘481 (“Islam”) discloses a method for assessing soil quality comprising the step of obtaining a sample of field soil prior to analysis (¶0007). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the prior art method (Ramirez) with the initial step of obtaining soil from the field, as suggested by Islam. The motivation for making the modification would have been to allow greater control over data collection compared to field sensor collection, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Ramirez fails to disclose the step of determining a gene count.
Petersen et al. (“Petersen”) disclose a method of measuring the biological content in soil, wherein the method includes the step of determining a count of the number of genes in a soil sample (see Summary; and p. 994, col. 1, ll. 19-20). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the prior art method with the step of determining a gene count, as suggested by Petersen. The motivation for making the modification would have been to measure the biological content of the soil by known means with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIMS 2, 7
In the prior art combination, biologic content (Ramirez, “soil-carbon parameter”, cl. 6) impacts soil structure and soil porosity and can be used to determine the degree to which soil is retaining water, but neither Ramirez nor Islam teaches the step. As Ramirez is further concerned with the soil moisture and its water holding capacity (Ramirez, p. 2, ll. 46-50), it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have considered the biologic content for selection of a treatment recommendation (Ramirez, “treatment schedule”) to increase the ability of the soil to retain water. The motivation for making the modification would have been to optimize the water retention of the soil to support a selected treatment recommendation.
CLAIMS 3, 7
In the prior art combination, biologic content (Ramirez, “soil-carbon parameter”, cl. 6) in the soil serves as a nutrient source for plants and is taught as useful for selecting a treatment recommendation (Ramirez, “treatment schedule”) to increase the ability of the soil to make nutrients available to plants (Ramirez, p. 6, ll. 30-34).
CLAIMS 4, 7
In the prior art combination, biologic content (Ramirez, “soil-carbon parameter”, cl. 6) supports microbial diversity and is taught as useful for selecting a treatment recommendation (Ramirez, “treatment schedule”) to increase the biodiversity in the soil (Ramirez, p. 6, ll. 9-16).
CLAIM 5
In the prior art combination, the method further comprises the step of measuring an amount of organic matter in the soil (Ramirez, cl. 6; and Petersen).
CLAIMS 6, 7
In the prior art combination, the method further comprises the steps of determining an aggregate score for the soil (Ramirez, cl. 1, “soil-related sustainability score”), and using the aggregate score to determine the ability of the soil to retain water (Ramirez, p. 29, ll. 10-14; e.g., a treatment schedule requiring “irrigation”).
CLAIM 21
In the prior art combination, the count of the number of genes in the soil is a count of genes associated with releasing nitrous oxide (Petersen, PNR) versus genes for reducing nitrous oxide to nitrogen (Petersen, PDR).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks/Arguments filed 02 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 under §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been modified in view of Petersen et al., “Abundance of microbial genes associated with nitrogen cycling as indices of biogeochemical process rates across a vegetation gradient in Alaska.”
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 TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/tm/
25 May 2026
1 Ramirez teaches a soil-related sustainability score, which is “a technical indicator for the potential of an agricultural field or a sub field zone to sequester carbon.”
2 Ramirez discloses multiple embodiments of the patented method, which comprise a step D for increasing the soil-related sustainability score with treatment.
Prosecution Insights