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
Summary
This is the Non-Final Office action based on the 18/599007 filed 03/07/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Independent Claims 1 & 17are directed towards methods.
Step 2A, Prong One: Independent Claims 1 & 17 recite abstract ideas which are “estimating,” in both the preamble and claim body. Estimating is a mental process which is an abstract idea.
The claims also require providing a data set, which is just numbers and estimating based on this which though not claimed would involve formulas or equations. Formulas or equations are mathematical concepts, which are an enumerated abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.04(a)).
Further, “adjusting a parameter,” for Claim 17 reads on mathematical adjustment so this is also an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The abstract idea in independent Claims 1 & 17 are not integrated into a practical application because upon or after the estimating, nothing further is done to practically apply.
Also- the claimed very general “testing,” step as instantly claimed is just data gathering to perform the judicial exceptions. Data gathering is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and does not practically apply the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05 (g).
Taking a core sample is also insignificant extra solution activity, which is done to gather data and perform the judicial exception. For claim 17 , where the sample is from or what it has in it, does not change this matter.
Step 2B: There is nothing in independent Claims 1 & 17 which add something which is non routine and conventional or significantly more to the claimed abstract idea judicial exception.
“Testing,” and taking core samples especially as generally claimed instantly claimed is well understood routine and conventional (WURC) in the art. This is evidenced by MCBRATNEY in US 20130197814, which teaches of taking a core sample and testing is (abstract). Again- where the sample is from and what it is does not change the matters above.
See MPEP 2106.05(d)- “laboratory techniques as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the life science arts when they are claimed in a merely generic manner.”
The dependent claims are analyzed the same way as above.
Claims 2 & 5 & 14 recite specifics about where the sample is from (which data is gathered from). This is part of the judicial exception so does nothing to practically apply at step 2A/2, nor to add significantly more at step 2B.
Claim 3-4, 12-13 recites specifics about what the sample is (which data is gathered from). This is part of the judicial exception so does nothing to practically apply at step 2A/2, nor to add significantly more at step 2B.
Claim 6, 15-16, 18, recites that more generic measuring of one from a long list of possible measuring techniques. These elements carry the same analysis as in the independent claim in that the measuring is used for data gathering so does nothing to practically apply at step 2A/2, nor to add significantly more at step 2B.
Claim 7-8, 19-20 recites that the testing requires heating to a high heat and that a catalyst is used. These elements carry the same analysis, however if applicant specifies how the heating is done and if the claim is more directed to detecting/measuring and not estimating things like this could overcome the 101 rejection. As currently claimed, the measuring is used for data gathering so does nothing to practically apply at step 2A/2, nor to add significantly more at step 2B.
Claim 9 recites specifics about when the testing or sample is taken (which data is gathered from). This is part of the judicial exception so does nothing to practically apply at step 2A/2, nor to add significantly more at step 2B.
Claim 10 recites adjusting, which reads on mathematical adjustment based on data. This is an abstract idea itself.
Claim 11, recites what parameter/value is adjusted in Claim 10. Again- this adjustment is mathematical and is an abstract idea itself.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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 1-4, 6, & 9-12 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by MCBRATNEY in US 20130197814 in view of SULLIVAN in US 20110070145.
With respect to Claim 1, MCBRATNEY teaches of method of quantifying soil carbon in a unit of land.
The method generally comprises the steps of (i) obtaining an estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land, (ii) stratifying the unit of land into a plurality of strata based at least partly on the spatial distribution of carbon content, (iii) selecting one or more locations from each of one or more of the plurality of strata, the one or more locations being selected with randomness, (iv) determining in a sample, the carbon content associated with the one or more first locations (reads on the claimed testing to provide a data set) and (v) determining total carbon content in the unit of land based at least partly on the sample carbon content.
The method is also used to quantify soil carbon sequestered in a unit of land by repeating steps (iv) and (v) at a second time and thereafter determining the amount of carbon sequestered. Furthermore, in quantifying—reads on “estimating,” the soil carbon sequestered, “the amount of carbon -based constituent present in a volume of soil,” steps (ii) and (iii) may also be repeated at the second time after re-stratification of the unit of land based on sample carbon determined at the first time (abstract).
MCBRATNEY further teaches that the sample is a core sample (paragraph 0041)/ a core soil sample (paragraph 0119) that is taken at a range in depth (paragraph 0041, 0118, 0130).
MCBRATNEY does not teach specifically that the core soil sample is below a root system which is associated with a biomass.
SULLIVAN is used to remedy this and more specifically teaches of a method relating to carbon sequestration icluding the steps of: a) taking a soil sample at a selected location where a plant type has grown or is growing; b) isolating phytoliths from the sample; c) quantifying phytolithic organic carbon in the sample from the plant type to provide data; and d) providing a projection for the data to support a carbon credit claim for the plant type growing at the location (abstract).
SULLIVAN teaches that the phytolithic carbon is due to root systems from carbon sinks such as biomasses (paragraph 0009, 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to detect from biomasses and root systems as is done in SULLIVAN in the method of MCBRATNEY due to the advantage that quantifying phytolithic content that lies in the root systems shows for giving the total amount of biomass of the plant types at the location or region (SULLIVAN, paragraph 0012).
With respect to Claim 2, MCBRATNEY teaches of the sample being from an agricultural sample (paragraph 0107).
With respect to Claim 3, MCBRATNEY teaches of the invention as shown above, but does not teach that the carbon-based constituent is carbon dioxide. SULLIVAN is used to remedy this and teaches of quantifying carbon-dioxide (paragraph 0006, 0003). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to quantify carbon dioxide as is done in SULLIVAN in the method of MCBRATNEY since biomasses are known carbon sinks for carbon dioxide and due to the need in the art to lower carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (SULLIVAN, paragraph 0007, 0003).
With respect to Claim 4, MCBRATNEY teaches of measuring for inorganic carbon in the sample (paragraph 0036), and organic carbon (paragraph 0063).
With respect to Claim 6, MCBRATNEY teaches of measuring by infrared spectroscopy (paragraph 0035). This can be considered high sensitivity since high is a relative term. Further SULLIVAN teaches of detection of soil moisture levels (paragraph 0109).
With respect to Claim 9, MCBRATNEY teaches of taking a core sample as testing it for a year and then at 5 years, which meets what is claimed (paragraph 0048, 0096, abstract).
With respect to Claim 10, MCBRATNEY teaches of the claims as shown above, but does not teach of adjusting a parameter as claimed. “Based on the data set,” can be read very broadly. SULLIVAN teaches of making the claimed adjustments and specifically of adjusting pH (paragraph 0109). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to adjust the pH as is done in SULLIVAN in the method of MCBRATNEY due to the advantage this has in changing or simulating change in modified growing conditions which gives validation for carbon credits claims (SULLIVAN, paragraph 0109).
With respect to Claim 11, MCBRATNEY teaches of the claims as shown above, but does not teach of adjusting a parameter as claimed. “Based on the data set,” can be read very broadly. SULLIVAN teaches of making the claimed adjustments and specifically of adjusting pH (paragraph 0109). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to adjust the pH as is done in SULLIVAN in the method of MCBRATNEY due to the advantage this has in changing or simulating change in modified growing conditions which gives validation for carbon credits claims (SULLIVAN, paragraph 0109).
With respect to Claim 12, MCBRATNEY teaches of the sample being from an agricultural sample (paragraph 0107), but does not teach of the biomass specifically being from plants trees, or crops. SULLIVAN is used to remedy this and teaches of plants (paragraph 0008-0010, 0023-0027, 0032-0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to use plants as is done in SULLIVAN in the method of MCBRATNEY due to the advantage this providing support for a carbon credit claim for the plan type at a growing location (SULLIVAN, paragraph 0042).
With respect to Claim 13, MCBRATNEY teaches of reporting carbon density in the soil sample so soil density (paragraph 0118, 0120, 0123-0124, 0145-0146, 0151, 0152, 0166, 0012, 0040).
Claims 5 &, 13-18 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by MCBRATNEY in US 20130197814 in view of SULLIVAN in US 20110070145 and further in view of OBRIEN in US 20150096368.
With respect to Claim 5, MCBRATNEY teaches of measuring at a depth of about 1 meter (paragraph 0118, 0123). SULLIVAN teaches of the invention as shown above. They do not teach of sampling 10-25 feet below the surface.
OBRIEN is used to remedy this and teach of a method and apparatus for determining soil density (abstract and paragraph 0001). OBRIEN further teaches of placing the sensor, so sampling 18-20 feet below the surface (paragraph 0036, 0052), It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to sample soil between 10 and 25 feet or not more than 18 to 20 feet as is done in OBRIEN in the methods of MCBRATNEY and SULLIVAN due to the advantage this depth has for showing self support for homes (paragraph 0036) and due to the advantage this has in predicting or measuring sinkhole formation which can affect many people in many area (paragraphs 0005-0006). Further--- OBRIEN notes that the instant method of density and depth analysis and detection has advantages for use in data gathering, seismic studies, plate shift analysis.
With respect to Claim 13, MCBRATNEY teaches of measuring at a depth of about 1 meter (paragraph 0118, 0123). SULLIVAN teaches of the invention as shown above. They do not teach of sampling 10-25 feet below the surface.
OBRIEN is used to remedy this and teach of a method and apparatus for determining soil density (abstract and paragraph 0001). OBRIEN further teaches of placing the sensor, so sampling 18-20 feet below the surface (paragraph 0036, 0052), and that the method can be used for seismic analysis (of which the fundamental core is lateral analysis) (paragraph 0088). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to perform seismic/lateral analysis as is suggested in OBRIEN (paragraph 0088) in the methods of MCBRATNEY And SULLIVAN due to the anticipated application/advantage the methods of OBRIEN of density and depth measurement are thought to have for these purposes (OBRIEN, paragraph 0088).
With respect to Claim 14, MCBRATNEY teaches of measuring at a depth of about 1 meter (paragraph 0118, 0123). SULLIVAN teaches of the invention as shown above. They do not teach of sampling 10-25 feet below the surface.
OBRIEN is used to remedy this and teach of a method and apparatus for determining soil density (abstract and paragraph 0001). OBRIEN further teaches of placing the sensor, so sampling 18-20 feet below the surface (paragraph 0036, 0052), and that the method can be used for seismic analysis (of which the fundamental core is lateral analysis) (paragraph 0088). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to perform seismic/lateral analysis as is suggested in OBRIEN (paragraph 0088) in the methods of MCBRATNEY And SULLIVAN due to the anticipated application/advantage the methods of OBRIEN of density and depth measurement are thought to have for these purposes (OBRIEN, paragraph 0088).
With respect to Claim 15, MCBRATNEY teaches of measuring at a depth of about 1 meter (paragraph 0118, 0123). SULLIVAN teaches of the invention as shown above. They do not teach of sampling 10-25 feet below the surface.
OBRIEN is used to remedy this and teach of a method and apparatus for determining soil density (abstract and paragraph 0001). OBRIEN further teaches of placing the sensor, so sampling 18-20 feet below the surface (paragraph 0036, 0052), and that the method can be used for seismic analysis (of which the fundamental core is lateral analysis) (paragraph 0088). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to perform seismic/lateral analysis as is suggested in OBRIEN (paragraph 0088) in the methods of MCBRATNEY And SULLIVAN due to the anticipated application/advantage the methods of OBRIEN of density and depth measurement are thought to have for these purposes (OBRIEN, paragraph 0088).
With respect to Claim 16, MCBRATNEY teaches of measuring at a depth of about 1 meter (paragraph 0118, 0123). SULLIVAN teaches of the invention as shown above. They do not teach of sampling 10-25 feet below the surface.
OBRIEN is used to remedy this and teach of a method and apparatus for determining soil density (abstract and paragraph 0001). OBRIEN further teaches of placing the sensor, so sampling 18-20 feet below the surface (paragraph 0036, 0052), and that the method can be used for seismic analysis (of which the fundamental core is lateral analysis) (paragraph 0088). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to perform seismic/lateral analysis as is suggested in OBRIEN (paragraph 0088) in the methods of MCBRATNEY And SULLIVAN due to the anticipated application/advantage the methods of OBRIEN of density and depth measurement are thought to have for these purposes (OBRIEN, paragraph 0088).
With respect to Claim 17, MCBRATNEY teaches of method of quantifying soil carbon in a unit of land.
The method generally comprises the steps of (i) obtaining an estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land, (ii) stratifying the unit of land into a plurality of strata based at least partly on the spatial distribution of carbon content, (iii) selecting one or more locations from each of one or more of the plurality of strata, the one or more locations being selected with randomness, (iv) determining in a sample, the carbon content associated with the one or more first locations (reads on the claimed testing to provide a data set) and (v) determining total carbon content in the unit of land based at least partly on the sample carbon content.
The method is also used to quantify soil carbon sequestered in a unit of land by repeating steps (iv) and (v) at a second time and thereafter determining the amount of carbon sequestered. Furthermore, in quantifying—reads on “estimating,” the soil carbon sequestered, “the amount of carbon -based constituent present in a volume of soil,” steps (ii) and (iii) may also be repeated at the second time after re-stratification of the unit of land based on sample carbon determined at the first time (abstract).
MCBRATNEY further teaches that the sample is a core sample (paragraph 0041)/ a core soil sample (paragraph 0119) that is taken at a range in depth (paragraph 0041, 0118, 0130).
MCBRATNEY does not teach specifically that the core soil sample is below a root system which is associated with a biomass.
SULLIVAN is used to remedy this and more specifically teaches of a method relating to carbon sequestration icluding the steps of: a) taking a soil sample at a selected location where a plant type has grown or is growing; b) isolating phytoliths from the sample; c) quantifying phytolithic organic carbon in the sample from the plant type to provide data; and d) providing a projection for the data to support a carbon credit claim for the plant type growing at the location (abstract).
SULLIVAN teaches that the phytolithic carbon is due to root systems from carbon sinks such as biomasses (paragraph 0009, 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to detect from biomasses and root systems as is done in SULLIVAN in the method of MCBRATNEY due to the advantage that quantifying phytolithic content that lies in the root systems shows for giving the total amount of biomass of the plant types at the location or region (SULLIVAN, paragraph 0012).
MCBRATNEY teaches of measuring at a depth of about 1 meter (paragraph 0118, 0123). SULLIVAN teaches of the invention as shown above. They do not teach of sampling 10-25 feet below the surface.
OBRIEN is used to remedy this and teach of a method and apparatus for determining soil density (abstract and paragraph 0001). OBRIEN further teaches of placing the sensor, so sampling 18-20 feet below the surface (paragraph 0036, 0052), It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to sample soil between 10 and 25 feet or not more than 18 to 20 feet as is done in OBRIEN in the methods of MCBRATNEY and SULLIVAN due to the advantage this depth has for showing self support for homes (paragraph 0036) and due to the advantage this has in predicting or measuring sinkhole formation which can affect many people in many area (paragraphs 0005-0006). Further--- OBRIEN notes that the instant method of density and depth analysis and detection has advantages for use in data gathering, seismic studies, plate shift analysis.
With respect to Claim 18, MCBRATNEY teaches of measuring by infrared spectroscopy (paragraph 0035). This can be considered high sensitivity since high is a relative term. Further SULLIVAN teaches of detection of soil moisture levels (paragraph 0109).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by MCBRATNEY in US 20130197814 in view of SULLIVAN in US 20110070145 and further in view of HSIEH in US 10969354.
With respect to Claim 7, MCBRATNEY and SULLIVAN teach of the invention as shown above. They do not teach of the claimed heated.
HSIEH is used to remedy this and teaches of a method for analysis of an environmental sample which can include a soil sample. HSEIH further teaches of heating up to 800 degrees Celsius which is 1472 degrees Fahrenheit (abstract, Column 3, lines 24-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat to this level as is done in HSIEH in the methods of MCBRATNEY and SULLIVAN due to the fact that the used MEST thermal analysis in this temperature range offers advantage in revealing the thermochemical stability range of the compounds in the sample (Column 3, lines 24-65).
With respect to Claim 8, MCBRATNEY and SULLIVAN teach of the invention as shown above. They do not teach of the claimed heated.
HSIEH is used to remedy this and teaches of a method for analysis of an environmental sample which can include a soil sample. HSEIH further teaches of heating up to 800 degrees Celsius which is 1472 degrees Fahrenheit (abstract, Column 3, lines 24-65). Heating can be considered “mixing,” with a catalyst through broadest reasonable interpretation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat to this level as is done in HSIEH in the methods of MCBRATNEY and SULLIVAN due to the fact that the used MEST thermal analysis in this temperature range offers advantage in revealing the thermochemical stability range of the compounds in the sample (Column 3, lines 24-65).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by MCBRATNEY in US 20130197814 in view of SULLIVAN in US 20110070145 and further in view of OBRIEN in US 20150096368 in view of HSIEH in US 10969354.
With respect to Claim 19, MCBRATNEY and SULLIVAN and OBRIEN teach of the invention as shown above. They do not teach of the claimed heated.
HSIEH is used to remedy this and teaches of a method for analysis of an environmental sample which can include a soil sample. HSEIH further teaches of heating up to 800 degrees Celsius which is 1472 degrees Fahrenheit (abstract, Column 3, lines 24-65). Heating can be considered “mixing,” with a catalyst through broadest reasonable interpretation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat to this level as is done in HSIEH in the methods of MCBRATNEY and SULLIVAN and OBRIEN due to the fact that the used MEST thermal analysis in this temperature range offers advantage in revealing the thermochemical stability range of the compounds in the sample (Column 3, lines 24-65).
With respect to Claim 20, MCBRATNEY teaches of measuring at a depth of about 1 meter (paragraph 0118, 0123). SULLIVAN teaches of the invention as shown above. They do not teach of sampling 10-25 feet below the surface.
OBRIEN is used to remedy this and teach of a method and apparatus for determining soil density (abstract and paragraph 0001). OBRIEN further teaches of placing the sensor, so sampling 18-20 feet below the surface (paragraph 0036, 0052), and that the method can be used for seismic analysis (of which the fundamental core is lateral analysis) (paragraph 0088). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to perform seismic/lateral analysis as is suggested in OBRIEN (paragraph 0088) in the methods of MCBRATNEY And SULLIVAN due to the anticipated application/advantage the methods of OBRIEN of density and depth measurement are thought to have for these purposes (OBRIEN, paragraph 0088).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
TAYLOR in US 20220124963
TAYLOR teaches of a method of method of modeling a scaling soil health through data, by taking a plurality of soil samples and training an AI algorithm to use the integrated data to determine soil quality estimates (abstract).
COVELY in US 20110240730
COVELY teaches of A system and method for performing soil analysis is disclosed. The method comprises generating a plurality of soil sample containers each having a unique identifier associated therewith. Pulling at least one soil sample from a field and placing the at least one soil sample in a respective one of the plurality of soil sample containers. Scanning the unique identifier associated with the soil sample container containing the at least one soil sample with a remote terminal. Obtaining a geographic coordinate reading associated with a location in the field from where the soil sample is obtained and associating the soil sample with the unique identifier and the geographic coordinate reading (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA M FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4344. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30 MT Monday-Friday.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached on 571-270-7698. 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.
/REBECCA M FRITCHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
I
Prosecution Insights