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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-6, filed 05 May 2026, with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding rejections under the prior art have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that McBratney et al. relies on statistically inferred carbon distributions to define strata, and, allegedly does not rely on feature-based landscape assessment of observable real-word features within a landscape that have the capacity to influence variability of carbon concentration and/or the ability to sequester carbon. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. McBratney et al. clearly disclose that the spatial distribution or map of a unit of land may be obtained by predicting or estimating the spatial distribution based at least partly on information associated with the unit of land (emphasis added) which is used as inputs (see para 0098), which clearly meets the recited limitations of assessing characteristics associated with carbon content of a landscape and the identification of “one or more feature-based landscape assessment” including identifying the unit of land having any one of or more of diversity of landscape, terrain attributes, land use type/classification (i.e. farm area), terrain information, geologic information, regolith information and wherein land use type/classification can include irrigated lands, dryland annuals, perennials, tree dominated or pasture dominated perennial system (see paras 0033, 0050, 0092, 0098, 0106, 0108) all of which inherently have real-world observable features/attributes within the landscape and inherently have the capacity to influence the variability of the concentrations of carbon and/or ability sequester carbon.
Applicant then alleges the McBratney et al. disclosure operates on a large scale, while the instant invention allegedly operates on a smaller scale, with Applicant pointing to portions of the instant filed specification as support of this alleged scaling. However, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., specific feature groups recited in the instant specification, and alleged small scale) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As such, scales and particular/specific feature groups that are not recited in the instant claimed invention do not limit the instant claimed invention. As such, all of Applicant’s arguments are traversed regarding the prior art rejection under the McBratney et al. reference. Claim 4 remains withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3. 6, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2013/0197814 to McBratney et al. McBratney et al. disclose a method of measuring soil (see entire reference) including the steps of: assessing the characteristics associated with carbon content of a landscape (“terrain attributes”) under inspection to identify one or more feature groups of the landscape under inspection and the amount of area of land (see paras 0043, 0050, 0051, 0092, 0112, claims 44 and 49) of each of the one or more features, wherein the feature groups are grouped based on observable features (irrigated lands; dryland annuals, perennials with inputs, perennials with irregular inputs, tree dominated or pasture dominated perennial systems) (see Figs. 2C-2E and para 0108) that have the capacity to influence the variability of the concentrations of carbon and/or the ability to sequester carbon; identifying sampling locations in each of the one or more feature groups and undertaking soil sampling for each identified sampling location (see paras 0006, 0012, 0022, 0093, 0111, 0115-0130) and measuring/calculating the carbon content of the landscape under inspection using the calculated carbon content of the soil of each of the one or more feature groups (see pars 0121, 0156, 0165) (as recited in instant independent claim 1); wherein the step of undertaking soil sampling at each identified sampling location to calculate the carbon content of the soil in each of the one or more feature groups is undertaken by soil sampling in the field (see aforementioned paragraphs) (as recited in instant dependent claim 3); wherein the step of calculating the carbon content of the landscape under inspection further the use of the amount of area of land of each of the one or more feature groups as a proportion of the total area of the landscape under inspection (see aforementioned paragraphs) (as recited in instant dependent claim 6); wherein the identifying each of the one or more feature groups of the landscape under inspection and the amount of area of land of each of the one or more feature groups includes calculating the amount of land each of the one or more feature groups as a proportion or portion of the total area of land of the landscape under inspection (see aforementioned paragraphs) (as recited in instant dependent claim 8); and further including the calculating the vertical proportion or portion of a below ground strata of the soil of each of the one or more feature groups to calculate a feature proportion or portion of the landscape under inspection (see aforementioned paragraphs, Fig. 3, and paras 0093-0098 and 0105-0153) (as recited in instant dependent claim 9.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner John Fitzgerald whose telephone number is (571) 272-2843. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM E.S.T. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor John Breene, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4107. 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. The central 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.
/JOHN FITZGERALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights