DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Remarks and Amendments filed 07/24/2025.
Claims 1, 5, 7-10, 12 are amended.
Claim 6 is canceled.
Claims 1-5, 7-15 have been examined and are pending.
(AIA ) Examiner Note
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 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.
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, 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception) without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, the claims recite specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, as follows:
Per Independent claim 1:
quantifying reduction of wildfire emissions from a defined territory over a defined period of time based on implementation of one or more wildfire fighting systems;
utilizing the quantified reduction of wildfire emissions to monetize implementation of the one or more wildfire fighting systems
wherein the quantifying step calculates the difference between (i) an estimated quantity of emissions in the absence of the implementation of the one or more wildfire fighting systems (Ob), and (ii) the actual quantity of emissions after the implementation of the one or more wildfire fighting systems (Qa).
As noted supra, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, these limitations fall within the group Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
That is, theses steps as drafted, are a business decision to monetize a business practice and quantify expected value in terms of estimated gas emissions reductions of wildfire emissions from [humans’] implementation of one or more wildfire fighting systems (e.g. Per Specification, pg. 1: “wild fire fighting systems could include… fire management, thinning, setting firebreaks and the like.”) and thus falling into Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. There is no technical problem being solved and there is no technical solution being presented to solve a technical problem.
Furthermore, the quantification step, at this high-level of generality may be a mental exercise or via pen and paper and the monetization step is not technical nor quantified in any meaningful way (note the Specification only briefly discusses pg. 7, lines 20-25: “…operators sell the quantity of reduced emissions on the carbon markets…” implying this is the implied monetization in the form of a carbon credit - but carbon credits are not applicant’s invention). The Federal Circuit has held similar concepts to be abstract. For example, the Federal Circuit has held that abstract ideas include the concepts of collecting data, analyzing the data (applicant’s quantification step), and reporting the results (applicant’s rewarding step) of the collection and analysis, including when limited to particular content (i.e. in this case CO2 emissions calculations). See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340-41 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (identifying the abstract idea of organizing, displaying, and manipulating data); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom SA., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (characterizing collecting information, analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, and presenting the results of collecting and analyzing information, without more, as matters within the realm of abstract ideas). Thus, under the first prong, claim 1 also recites the patent-ineligible judicial exception of a mental process.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. There are no additional elements, other than those noted supra, recited in the claims. Therefore, no such additional element(s) or a combination of elements are recited in the claims which apply, rely on, or use the identified judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As drafted, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts and link them to a field of use (i.e. in this case rewards based on wildfire emissions reductions) or serve as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Per Step 2B, the Examiner does not find that the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., the claims do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the claim. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the independent claims were considered as merely serving to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts via generically described computer components and “link” them to a field of use, or as insignificant extra-solution activity. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept; i.e. the same analysis applies here in 2B. Mere conventional data gathering cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. So, upon revaluating here in step 2B, these elements are determined to amount to no more than gather and transmit data which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; i.e. note the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as found supra, nor provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
As for the dependent claims, the dependent claims do recite a combination of additional elements. However, these claims as a whole, considered either independently or in combination with the parent claims, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application thereof nor do they provide an inventive concept.
For example, dependent claim 2 recites the following: “The method of claim 1, wherein the quantifying step is objective and transparent to users thereof.” However, this is part of the abstract idea but not significantly more.
Therefore, the Examiner does not find that these additional claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Instead, these limitations, as a whole and in combination with the already recited claim elements of the parent claims, are not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea. A similar finding is found for the remaining dependent claims.
For these reasons, the claims are not found to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and are therefore patent ineligible.
Please see the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 (found at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (AIA )
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-5, 7, 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Verra (NPL: https://verra.org/ ; retrieved from Internet Archive March 07, 2022); Per Verra’s website, Verra manages the world’s leading voluntary carbon markets program, the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) Program.
Claim 1: (currently amended)
Pertaining to claim 1, Verra as shown teaches the following:
A method for reducing carbon emissions associated with wildfires, comprising:
quantifying reduction of wildfire emissions from a defined territory over a defined period of time based on implementation of one or more wildfire fighting1 systems (Verra, see at least Verra VM0029 [pgs. 32-33], e.g. section 8.4 regarding quantification calculations for determining Net Green House Gas Emissions Reductions and Removals:
PNG
media_image1.png
240
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This methodology quantifies the greenhouse gas reductions from the implementation of preventative early burning activities [wildfire fighting systems] in the miombo woodlands of the Eastern Miombo ecoregion of Africa, including regions of Tanzania, Mozambique and Malawi. Preventative early burning activities burn with lower intensity and remove fuel load from more intense late season fires. This process results in lower tree mortality and net biomass growth.)
utilizing the quantified reduction of wildfire emissions to monetize implementation of the one or more wildfire fighting systems (Verra, see citations noted supra, e.g. at least VM0029 [pgs. 32-33], teaching “VCUs” [a type of monetization] are credited to a wildfire preventative project [implementation of the one or more wildfire fighting systems]:
PNG
media_image2.png
294
614
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes Verra’s “VCU” per Verra’s VCU-Conversion-Deed-of-Representation-v3.3: “…"Verified Carbon Unit" (VCU) means a unit issued by, and held in a VCS Registry representing the right of an Accountholder in whose account the unit is recorded, to claim the achievement of a Reduction that has been verified by a validation/verification body in accordance with the VCS Rules. Recordation of a VCU in the account of the Accountholder at a VCS Registry is prima facie evidence of that Accountholder's entitlement to that VCU.”]).
wherein the quantifying step calculates the difference between (i) an estimated quantity of emissions in the absence of the implementation of the one or more wildfire fighting systems (Qb), and (ii) the actual quantity of emissions after the implementation of the one or more wildfire fighting systems (Qa) (Verra, see at least Verra VM0029 [pgs. 32-33], e.g. section 8.4 regarding quantification calculations for determining Net Green House Gas Emissions Reductions and Removals:
PNG
media_image1.png
240
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s (Qb) reads on Verra’s “baseline” and Applicant’s (Qa) reads on Verra’s PRy).
Claim 2 (Original)
Verra teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Verra as shown teaches the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein the quantifying step is objective and transparent to users thereof (Verra, see citations noted supra e.g. in VM0029. The calculations to quantify GHG reductions are provided and therefore, in this sense, are transparent and objective).
Claim 3 (Original)
Verra teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Verra as shown teaches the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein the quantifying step is based on one or more assumptions and on publicly available data (Verra, see citations noted supra e.g. in VM0029. The calculations to quantify GHG reductions are based on “baselines” and “leakage” each of which are based on assumptions and publicly available data; see also at least sections 8.2.1.1, 8.2.1.2, and also section 8.3 “Leakage”)
Claim 4 (Original)
Verra teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Verra as shown teaches the following:
The method of claim 1, further comprising certification of the quantified reduction of wildfire emissions by a certifying agency (Verra, see citations noted supra e.g. in VM0029 teaching VCUs are issued to projects. Also note Verra’s VCU-Conversion-Deed-of-Representation-v3.3, teaching: “…"Verified Carbon Unit" (VCU) means a unit issued by, and held in a VCS Registry representing the right of an Accountholder in whose account the unit is recorded, to claim the achievement of a Reduction that has been verified by a validation/verification body in accordance with the VCS Rules. Recordation of a VCU in the account of the Accountholder at a VCS Registry is prima facie evidence of that Accountholder's entitlement to that VCU.”).
Claim 5 (currently amended)
Verra teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Verra as shown teaches the following:
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the monetization for implementation of the one or more wildfire fighting systems is selected from the group consisting of (i) trading of the quantified reduction of wildfire emissions, (ii) monetization of the quantified reduction of wildfire emissions based on payment(s) from one or more entities or organizations using the quantified reduction of wildfire emissions in satisfaction of national determined contributions (NDCs), and (iii) combinations thereof (Verra, see citations noted supra, including Verra’s VCU-Conversion-Deed-of-Representation-v3.3: “…"Verified Carbon Unit" (VCU) means a unit issued by, and held in a VCS Registry representing the right of an Accountholder in whose account the unit is recorded, to claim the achievement of a Reduction that has been verified by a validation/verification body in accordance with the VCS Rules. Recordation of a VCU in the account of the Accountholder at a VCS Registry is prima facie evidence of that Accountholder's entitlement to that VCU.”)
Claim 7 (currently amended)
Verra teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Verra as shown teaches the following:
The method of claim 1, further comprising inclusion of collateral emissions (Qc) in the quantifying step (Verra, see at least Verra VM0029 [pgs. 32-33], e.g. section 8.4 regarding quantification calculations for determining Net Green House Gas Emissions Reductions and Removals:
PNG
media_image1.png
240
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s (Qc) reads on Verra’s Lfda,y).
Claim 9 (currently amended)
Verra teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Verra as shown teaches the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein the estimated quantity of emissions in the absence of the implementation of the one or more wildfire fighting systems (Qb) is based on data acquired by satellites (Verra, see at least Verra VM0029 [pg. 6] Baseline Reference Region (BRR) is “The region used to establish baseline burn probabilities” and per [pg. 38] teaching “source of data: Composite map of satellite images (eg, Landsat or SPOT)… purpose of data: Calculation of baseline emissions”).
Claim 10 (currently amended)
Verra teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Verra as shown teaches the following:
The method of claim 8, wherein the data acquired by satellites is accessed from a publicly available database (Verra, see at least Verra VM0029 per [pg. 38] teaching “source of data: Composite map of satellite images (eg, Landsat or SPOT)… purpose of data: Calculation of baseline emissions”).
Claim 11 (original)
Verra teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Verra as shown teaches the following:
The method of claim 9, wherein the estimated quantity of emissions in the absence of the implementation of the one or more wildfire fighting systems (Qb) includes a time-based function (Verra, see at least Verra VM0029 [pg. 14] Section 8.1 Baseline Emissions which show the calculations include time as well as degradation over time [both time based functions]).
Claim 12 (currently amended)
Verra teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Verra as shown teaches the following:
The method of claim 1, further comprising determination of a fluctuations-adjusted baseline emissions value (Qb32) (Verra, see at least Verra VM0029 [pg. 82], teaching: “…Fuel Moisture: Fuel moisture of dead fuel varies through the year based on rainfall events and subsequent drying. Dead fuel moisture is estimated using the method of Thonicke et al. (2010), which is based upon calculation of the Nesterov Index of fire danger (Nesterov, 1949)…”; the baseline emissions calculations are based upon this calculation).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Verra.
Claim 8 (currently amended)
Verra teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Verra as shown teaches the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein the actual quantity of emissions after the implementation of the one or more wildfire fighting systems (Qa) is based on data acquired by satellites (Although Verra, e.g. per Verra VM0029 [pg. 6] teaches Baseline Reference Region (BRR) is “The region used to establish baseline burn probabilities” and per [pg. 38] teaches “source of data: Composite map of satellite images (eg, Landsat or SPOT)… purpose of data: Calculation of baseline emissions”, Verra may not explicitly teach that the actual quantity of emissions, rather than the baseline, is based on data acquired by satellites. Nonetheless, the aforementioned teachings provides motivation to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also measure the area of any region having burned and releasing actual quantities of emissions after implementation of a fire fighting system by using, i.e. based upon, data acquired by satellites and therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used satellite data in quantifying actual quantity of emissions because such quantities come from actual areas burned and such areas may be precisely measured via satellite imagery and because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.)
Claims 13, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Verra in view of Wu et al. (US 20230186173 A1; hereinafter, “Wu”)
Claim 13 (Original)
Although Verra teaches the above limitations upon which this claim depends and Verra teaches, e.g. per VM0029 [pg. 82], various factors (such as Fuel Moisture) influencing baseline emissions values, Verra may not explicitly teach the below nuance. However, regarding this feature, Verra in view of Wu teaches the following:
The method of claim 12, wherein the fluctuations-adjusted baseline emissions value (Qb3) is equal to En+S1*dP1+ ... Sw*dPw, wherein S1...Sw are constants representing sensitivities of wildfire emissions to corresponding fire conditions parameters P1...Pw, and wherein dP1...dPw represent variations of relevant fire conditions parameters in respect to their historic average values for the defined territory (Wu, see at least [0010]-[0014], [0032]-[0036], and [0071]-[0083] including Table2, teaching: e.g.: “…The global sensitivity analysis method used in step 4 is Sobol method which is performed in the following step: for each environmental factor [Pi], a change range [dPi] and a probability distribution are calculated and then a corresponding sensitivity index [Si] is calculated in combination with the regional carbon dioxide spatiotemporal distribution simulation model…”; where Wu’s environmental factors are factors affecting carbon dioxide distribution; i.e. Wu teaches a model to estimate emissions of CO2 from fires over a given area and Wu teaches Applicant’s relevant factors “environmental factors” [Pi], “a change range” [dPi] and “sensitivity index” [Si]. Therefore, although perhaps not explicated stated, it nonetheless would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have calculated a baseline CO2 emissions value equivalent to applicant’s (Qb3) which is the summation of an initial value [En] and Wu’s Sensitivity[Si] multiplied by Wu’s “a change range” [dPi] because doing so calculates how much the output of the model, i.e. the emissions of CO2, will change from the initial value [En] based on the size of the parameter changes of interest, with motivation of providing a prediction of CO2 emissions and because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Wu (directed towards techniques of determining model parameter sensitivities to environmental factors as regards estimating CO2 emissions from fires) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Verra (directed towards calculating and quantifying CO2 emissions from fires) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques of Wu to the device/method of Verra in order to arrive at the limitation in question because Wu is pertinent to the objective of Verra and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 14 (Original)
Verra/Wu teach the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Verra in view of Wu teaches the following:
The method of claim 13, wherein the sensitivities of wildfire emissions are based on historical data as the variation of the emissions in respect to the historic average quantity of wildfire emissions En over the defined territory, ratioed to the variation of the respective fire conditions parameter dPi in respect to its historic average (Wu, see citations noted supra, including at least [0078]
PNG
media_image3.png
152
514
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 15 (Original)
Verra/Wu teach the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Verra in view of Wu teaches the following:
The method of claim 13, wherein the Si*dPi term represents the partial effect of the variation of fire conditions parameter Pi determined by multiplying the actual deviation dPi of the fire conditions parameter in respect to its historic average multiplied with its respective sensitivity (Again, see Wu per at least [0010]-[0014], [0032]-[0036], and [0071]-[0083] including Table2, teaching: e.g.: “…The global sensitivity analysis method used in step 4 is Sobol method which is performed in the following step: for each environmental factor [Pi], a change range [dPi] and a probability distribution are calculated and then a corresponding sensitivity index [Si] is calculated in combination with the regional carbon dioxide spatiotemporal distribution simulation model…”; i.e. Wu teaches a model to estimate emissions of CO2 from fires over a given area and Wu teaches Applicant’s relevant factors “environmental factor” [Pi], “a change range” [dPi] and “sensitivity index” [Si]. Therefore, although perhaps not explicated stated, it nonetheless would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have calculated a value equivalent to applicant’s (Qb3) which is the summation of Wu’s Sensitivity[Si] multiplied by Wu’s “a change range” [dPi] because doing so calculates how much the output of the model, i.e. the emissions of CO2, will change based on the size of the parameter changes of interest, with motivation of providing a prediction of CO2 emissions and because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claims 1, 5, 7-10, 12 and canceled claim 6 on 07/24/2025. Applicant's arguments (hereinafter “Remarks”) also filed 07/24/2025, have been fully considered but are not convincing. Note the updated 35 USC 101, 102 and 103 rejections in view of Verra. For example, regarding the 35 USC 102 rejection, note the following teachings of Verra regarding applicant’s argued amendment as shown in the rejection provided supra and hereinbelow for ease of reference:
wherein the quantifying step calculates the difference between (i) an estimated quantity of emissions in the absence of the implementation of the one or more wildfire fighting systems (Qb), and (ii) the actual quantity of emissions after the implementation of the one or more wildfire fighting systems (Qa) (Verra, see at least Verra VM0029 [pgs. 32-33], e.g. section 8.4 regarding quantification calculations for determining Net Green House Gas Emissions Reductions and Removals:
PNG
media_image1.png
240
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s (Qb) reads on Verra’s “baseline” and Applicant’s (Qa) reads on Verra’s PRy).
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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SITTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; ~9:30-6:30. 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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. 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.
/Michael J Sittner/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
1 Specification, pg. 1, lines 21-22: “…wildfire fighting systems could include suppression activities as well as prevention activities such as: fire management, thinning, setting firebreaks and the like.”
2 Specification (pg. 5, line 25-26): “…Qb3 takes into account the year-to-year weather fluctuations that
could influence the baseline in the absence of an active firefighting system…”