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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/28/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, and 4-24 rejected under 35 USC §101.
Claims 2, 3, 25, and 26 are canceled claims.
Remarks
Applicant’s arguments, filed (08/04/2025), with respect to pending claims 1, and 4-24 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive, because the new amendments is not overcome 101 Rejection Please see rejection below for full details. The Terminal disclaimers filed of 08/04/2025 is overcome the non-statutory double patent rejection.
Arguments
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The applicant argues Page 9, Lines 7-12:
“However, as amended, claim 1 recites, in part, “providing ..., a plurality of soil sample locations within the land area,” and “sampling, at the plurality of soil sample locations in the land area, soil in the land area to generate regional soil data for the plurality of soil sample locations, accessing ... regional soil data comprising measurements describing soil of the land area.” Performing measurements in a land area is not a mathematical process, nor is it an abstract idea. Correspondingly, independent claim 1 is directed to patentable subject matter and should be found allowable.”
The Examiner respectfully disagree because claim 1 does not recited the actual measurements.
The steps of “providing, a plurality of soil sample locations within the land area” just obtaining data steps, which is insignificant extra solution activity.
The limitation of "sampling, at the plurality of soil sample locations in the land area, soil in the land area to generate regional soil data for the plurality of soil sample locations, accessing ... regional soil data comprising measurements describing soil of the land area." , just well-known and conventional steps of sampling data in the same technological field.
Therefore that limitation is not significantly more to overcome 101 Rejection.
Double Patenting
Based on the two Terminal Disclaimers, filed on 08/04/2025, the Double Patenting of Claims 1, 4-24 and 26 is 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 and 4-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A prong 2 determines whether any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a
statutory category by 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. The above claims 1-22 is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the independent claim 1 all include abstract ideas as highlighted (using a bold font) shown below.
“1. A method for estimating greenhouse gas emissions, the method comprising:
providing, from a computing node, a plurality of soil sample locations within the land area;
sampling, at the plurality of soil sample locations in the land area, soil in the land area to generate regional soil data for the plurality of soil sample locations;
accessing, at the computing node regional soil data comprising measurements describing soil of the land area;
determining, at the computing node, a plurality of pre-strata based on the plurality of soil sample locations and the regional soil data, wherein each pre-stratum of the plurality of pre-strata comprises a plurality of soil sample points across the land area; for each pre-stratum of the plurality of pre-strata:
determining, at the computing node, a potential for bias in an estimate of emissions for the pre-stratum; and
determining, at the computing node, a plurality of post-strata based on the pre- strata, the determination based on the potential for bias relative to a predetermined threshold; and determining, at the computing node, an estimated emissions and an agronomic variable contributing to the estimated emissions based on the plurality of post-strata.”
“ 24. A system comprising: a soil sample location database;
a regional soil data database; and
a computing node comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor of the computing node to cause the processor to perform a method comprising:
providing, from the computing node, a plurality of soil sample locations within a land area;
sampling, at the plurality of soil sample locations in the land area, soil in the land area to generate regional soil data for the plurality of soil sample locations;
accessing, at the computing node from sensors in the land area, regional soil data comprising measurements describing soil of the land area;
determining, at the computing node, a plurality of pre-strata based on the plurality of soil sample locations and the regional soil data, wherein each pre- stratum of the plurality of pre-strata comprises a plurality of soil sample points across the land area;
for each pre-stratum of the plurality of pre-strata:
determining, at the computing node, a potential for bias in an estimate of emissions for the pre-stratum; and
determining, at the computing node, a plurality of post-strata based on the pre-strata, the determination based on the potential for bias relative to a predetermined threshold; and
determining, at the computing node, an estimated emissions and an agronomic variable contributing to the estimated emissions based on the plurality of post-strata.”
The highlighted step above: “determining…” “generate..” is considered to be equivalent of a mathematical concept and mental steps performed in the human mind (including observation and evaluation) including using a computer/processor.
Under step 2A prong 2,
The claims are not directed to any practical application.
The claims 1 and 24, do not comprise any significant additional elements/steps.
The additional limitations in relation to the computing node does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)). The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea.
The steps of “providing, from a computing node, a plurality of soil sample locations within the land area; responsive to performing soil measurements in the land area to generate regional soil data for the plurality of soil sample locations, accessing, at the computing node regional soil data comprising measurements describing soil of the land area” of claims 1 and step of “providing, from a computing node, a plurality of soil sample locations within the land area; accessing, at the computing node, regional soil data comprising remote sensing data” in claim 24 and step of “accessing, at the computing node, regional soil data comprising remote sensing data; determining, at the computing node, a plurality of pre-strata based on the plurality of soil sample locations and the regional soil data, wherein each pre-stratum of the plurality of pre-strata comprises a plurality of soil sample points across the land area” in claim 26 just obtaining data steps, which is insignificant extra solution activity.
Under step 2B
In claims 1, and 24: the steps of “providing, from a computing node, a plurality of soil sample locations within the land area “just well-known, routine and conventional steps of obtaining data in the relevant art as evidence provide by the Chabala et. al., “Application of Ordinary Kriging in Mapping Soil Organic Carbon in Zambia” (Fig. 1) and Cotching et., al, “Land use and management influences on surface soil organic carbon in Tasmania”(Fig. 1) and Jobbagy “The Vertical Distribution of Soil Organic Carbon and its Relation to Climate and Vegetation” (Fig.1).
The new limitation of claim 1: “sampling, at the plurality of soil sample locations in the land area, soil in the land area to generate regional soil data for the plurality of soil sample locations” and “sampling, at the plurality of soil sample locations in the land area, soil in the land area to generate regional soil data for the plurality of soil sample locations”, as recited in claim 24, just well-known and conventional steps of sampling data in the same technological field. The sampling is recited at a high level of generality does not specifically tie the claims to a practical application.
Regarding Claim 24:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the a representing “accessing, from sensors in the land area, regional soil data describing soil of the land area”-is merely insignificant extra solution activity to obtain data. There are not details of any component hardware employed, and the recitation of the dataset indicative of user interactions of users with the respective one of the control and treatment versions only describes the type of data but in no manner claims any action or components used to physically measure the data.
The depended claims 4, 7, 9-13, 17, 18, and 21- 23 are merely extend the details of the abstract idea of mathematical concepts.
The Claims 5, 6, 8, 14-16, 19 and 20, just additionally describes the type of data.
The claims 1, and 4-24 are patent ineligible under 35 USC §101.
1) Examiner note regarding the prior art of the record:
Regarding Claim 1, Zimmerman (US Pat.7974853), hereinafter Zimmerman disclose estimating greenhouse gas emissions (Col. 14, lines 17-25, where estimating Carbon Emission Reduction Credit, or CERC based on available information, and strategies for auditing and verifying data inputs that are consistent with current, pending and future greenhouse gas emissions legislation);
Chabala et.al., “Application of Ordinary Kriging in Mapping Soil Organic Carbon in Zambia”, disclose determining a plurality of pre-strata based on the plurality of soil
sample locations (Fig.1, Location of soil sampling points recorded in the landform map
of Zambia, where Landform comprises Backslope, Summit (Hilltops), Toeslope,
Footslope; Fig. 3, map of (SOC) spatial distribution, from the Fig. 1 the samples located
on different landform/pre-strata); and
the regional soil data, wherein each pre-stratum of the plurality of pre-strata
comprises a plurality of soil sample points across the land area (Fig. 3, where map of
SOC spatial distribution based on the measured data and fitted variogram,);
for each pre-stratum of the plurality of pre-strata (Fig.1, Page 339):
determining a plurality of post-strata based on the pre-stratum, wherein the plurality
of post-strata are disjoint subsets of the pre-stratum (Fig. 3, where map of soil organic
carbon (SOC) spatial distribution);
Roper et.al., “Comparing Four Methods of Measuring Soil Organic Matter in North Carolina Soils”, disclose (Table 2, Page 470, where correlation, trial, number samples, Pearson's correlation coefficient, Page 470, col.1, lines 22-27, where tables 2 and 3. Results for LOI, WB and ADC are grouped together in Table 2 because these methods are designed to measure total amounts of SOM or SOC, respectively Correlations with HM are reported separately in Table 3 due to the different nature of HM relative to the relationship between SOC and SOM, which are more closely linked by chemistry. P-value is interpreted as the potential for bias).
The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the steps of:
“for each pre-stratum of the plurality of pre-strata: determining, at the computing node, a potential for bias in an estimate of emissions for the pre-stratum; and
determining , at a computing node, a plurality of post-strata based on the pre-strata, the determination based on the potential for bias relative to a predetermined threshold; and determining, at the computing node, an estimated emissions and an agronomic variable contributing to the estimated emissions based on the plurality of post-strata .”
Regarding Claim 24 is analyzed and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 1.
Additionally, Zimmerman disclose a soil attribute database (Col. 27, lines 35-49, Col. 29, lines 6-8,);
a soil sample location database (Col.23, lines 20-31);
a regional soil data database (Claim 1, where site-specific land use practices);
accessing, from sensors in the land area, regional soil data describing soil of the land area (Col.23, lines 20-31);
a computing node comprising a computer readable storage medium having program
instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor of
the computing node to cause the processor to perform (Col. 29, lines 17-20, where data
processors adapted to run numerical models and data processors adapted to run
uncertainty analyses) a method comprising:
providing from the computing node, a plurality of soil sample locations within the land area; accessing, at the computing node, regional soil data comprising measurements describing soil of the land area;
from the soil sample location database,
(Col. 29, lines 5-19).
The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the steps of:
“for each pre-stratum of the plurality of pre-strata:
determining a potential for bias in an estimate of emissions for the pre-stratum; and determining a plurality of post-strata based on the pre-strata, the
determination based on the potential for bias relative to a predetermined threshold; and determining an estimated emissions based on the plurality of post-strata.”
The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the steps of:
“for each pre-stratum of the plurality of pre-strata:
determining, at the computing node, a potential for bias in an estimate of emissions for the pre-stratum; and determining, at the computing node, a plurality of post-strata based on the pre- strata, the determination based on the potential for bias relative to a predetermined threshold; and determining, at the computing node, an estimated emissions and an agronomic variable contributing to the estimated emissions based on the plurality of post-strata.”
Claims 2-23 are not rejected under 102/103 Rejection due to their dependency on claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Jobbagy et.al., “The Vertical Distribution of Soil Organic Carbon and Its Relation to Climate and Vegetation”.
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 KALERIA KNOX whose telephone number is (571)270-5971. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571)2722302. 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.
/KALERIA KNOX/
Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/MICHAEL J DALBO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857