DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on May 13, 2024.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 13/701786, filed on 12/03/2012.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/13/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two strata, wherein the stratification is based, at least in part, on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land …” should read “stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two strata, wherein the stratification is based, at least in part, on the obtained estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land …” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “determining a quantity of locations to sample within each strata, the determined quantity of locations being at least one more than the total quantity of at least two strata and being based on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land” should read “determining a quantity of locations to sample within each strata, the determined quantity of locations being at least one more than the total quantity of at least two strata and being based on the obtained estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “determining, at least partially based on determined sample carbon content for the randomly selected locations, a total carbon content in the unit of land” should read “determining, at least partially based on determined sample carbon contents for the randomly selected locations, a total carbon content in the unit of land” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The method of Claim 1, wherein the obtained estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land comprises a regional prediction of spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The method of Claim 1, further comprising downscaling [[the]] information associated with the unit of land” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The method of Claim 13, wherein determining the stratum boundary is based, at least in part, on the obtained estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The method of Claim 14, wherein determining the stratum boundary is based, at least in part, on a cumulative function of a square root of frequencies of occurrence of carbon derived from the obtained estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “The method of Claim 1, wherein information related to the unit of land correlated with a soil carbon distribution associated with the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land comprises …” should read “The method of Claim 1, wherein information related to the unit of land correlated with a soil carbon distribution associated with the obtained estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land comprises …” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two strata, wherein the stratification is based, at least in part, on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land …” should read “stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two strata, wherein the stratification is based, at least in part, on the obtained estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land …” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “determining a quantity of locations to sample within each strata, the determined quantity of locations being at least one more than the total quantity of at least two strata and being based on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land” should read “determining a quantity of locations to sample within each strata, the determined quantity of locations being at least one more than the total quantity of at least two strata and being based on the obtained estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “determining, at least partially based on determined first sample carbon content for the first set of locations, a first total carbon content in the unit of land” should read “determining, at least partially based on determined first sample carbon contents for the first set of locations, a first total carbon content in the unit of land” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “determining, at least partially based on determined second sample carbon content for the second set of locations, a second total carbon content in the unit of land” should read “determining, at least partially based on determined second sample carbon contents for the second set of locations, a second total carbon content in the unit of land” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two strata, wherein the stratification is based, at least in part, on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land …” should read “stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two strata, wherein the stratification is based, at least in part, on the obtained estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land …” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “determining a quantity of locations to sample within each strata, the determined quantity of locations being at least one more than the total quantity of at least two strata and being based on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land” should read “determining a quantity of locations to sample within each strata, the determined quantity of locations being at least one more than the total quantity of at least two strata and being based on the obtained estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “determining, at least partially based on determined first sample carbon content for the first set of locations, a first total carbon content in the unit of land” should read “determining, at least partially based on determined first sample carbon contents for the first set of locations, a first total carbon content in the unit of land” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “re-stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two re-stratified strata based, at least in part, on the determined first sample carbon content” should read “re-stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two re-stratified strata based, at least in part, on the determined first sample carbon contents” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “determining, at least partially based on determined second sample carbon content for the second set of locations, a second total carbon content in the unit of land” should read “determining, at least partially based on determined second sample carbon contents for the second set of locations, a second total carbon content in the unit of land” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Note
Claim language “CNS analyzer” is interpreted to correspond to a Carbon, Nitrogen, Sulfur analyzer.
Claims 1-26 were evaluated for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY TEST FOR PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES described in the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) to determine patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 1, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the test for evaluating claims for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test, the examiner submits that claim 1 does not recite a judicial exception, therefore, the claim qualifies as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C.101 (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Revised Step 2A, see also MPEP 2106.04).
Similarly, independent claims 20 and 24 are directed to patent eligible subject matter as explained above with regards to claim 1.
Regarding the dependent claims 2-19, 21-23 and 25-26, they were found to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 by incorporating the eligible subject matter of their corresponding independent claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11670401. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims from the U.S. Patent anticipate the claimed subject matter in the current application (see table for comparison wherein underlined text in some claims in the U.S. Patent indicates claimed subject matter in the current application).
Application 18/139615
US 11670401 B2
Regarding claim 1.
A method of quantifying soil carbon in a unit of land by independently auditing an obtained estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land, the method comprising:
stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two strata, wherein the stratification is based, at least in part, on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land, and a designated level of uncertainty associated with carbon content in the unit of land;
determining a quantity of locations to sample within each strata, the determined quantity of locations being at least one more than the total quantity of at least two strata and being based on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land;
randomly selecting a location for each of the determined quantity of locations, wherein randomly selected locations are allocated between the total quantity of at least two strata;
for each randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations, determining a sample carbon content; and
determining, at least partially based on determined sample carbon content for the randomly selected locations, a total carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 1.
A method of quantifying soil carbon in a unit of land, the method comprising:
(a) obtaining an estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land by:
(i) correlating information associated with the unit of land with soil carbon distribution, and
(ii) inputting the correlated information into a carbon content prediction model to predict the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land; and
(b) thereafter, independently auditing the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land by:
(i) stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two strata, wherein the stratification is based, at least in part, on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content, and a designated level of uncertainty associated with carbon content in the unit of land;
(ii) determining a quantity of locations to sample within each strata, the determined quantity of locations being at least one more than the total quantity of at least two strata and being based on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land;
(iii) randomly selecting a location for each of the determined quantity of locations, wherein randomly selected locations are allocated between the total quantity of at least two strata;
(iv) for each randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations, determining a sample carbon content; and
(v) determining, at least partially based on determined sample carbon contents for the randomly selected locations, a total carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 2.
The method of Claim 1, wherein the designated level of uncertainty associated with the carbon content in the unit of land is based on a confidence interval of the total carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 2.
The method of claim 1, wherein the designated level of uncertainty associated with the carbon content in the unit of land is based on a confidence interval of the total carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 3.
The method of Claim 1, wherein the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land comprises a regional prediction of spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 3.
The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land comprises obtaining a regional prediction of spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 4.
The method of Claim 1, further comprising downscaling the information associated with the unit of land.
Regarding claim 4.
The method of claim 1, further comprising downscaling the information associated with the unit of land.
Regarding claim 5.
The method of Claim 1, wherein determining the sample carbon content for at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations comprises determining sample carbon content in at least one layer of measured mass of soil over a determined area of the unit of land.
Regarding claim 5.
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the sample carbon content for at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations comprises determining sample carbon content in at least one layer of measured mass of soil over a determined area of the unit of land.
Regarding claim 6.
The method of Claim 5, wherein determining the sample carbon content for the at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations comprises determining at least one of: a cutting shoe diameter, a push depth, and a hole depth, associated with the measured mass of soil.
Regarding claim 6.
The method of claim 5, wherein determining the sample carbon content for the at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations comprises determining at least one of: a cutting shoe diameter, a push depth, and a hole depth, associated with the measured mass of soil.
Regarding claim 7.
The method of Claim 1, wherein determining the sample carbon content for at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations comprises determining composite carbon content from the at least one randomly selected location.
Regarding claim 7.
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the sample carbon content for at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations comprises determining composite carbon content from the at least one randomly selected location.
Regarding claim 8.
The method of Claim 7, wherein determining the composite carbon content from the at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations includes compositing at least two layers of equal mass of soil from the at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations.
Regarding claim 8.
The method of claim 7, wherein determining the composite carbon content from the at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations includes compositing at least two layers of equal mass of soil from the at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations.
Regarding claim 9.
The method of Claim 1, further comprising reporting the determined sample carbon content for at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations by at least one of absolute weight of carbon, absolute mass of carbon, percentage weight of carbon, percentage mass of carbon, fractional weight of carbon and fractional mass of carbon.
Regarding claim 9.
The method of claim 1, further comprising reporting the determined sample carbon content for at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations by at least one of absolute weight of carbon, absolute mass of carbon, percentage weight of carbon, percentage mass of carbon, fractional weight of carbon and fractional mass of carbon.
Regarding claim 10.
The method of Claim 1, wherein determining the total carbon content in the unit of land comprises determining total carbon content in a predetermined mass of soil per unit area of the unit of land.
Regarding claim 10.
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the total carbon content in the unit of land comprises determining total carbon content in a predetermined mass of soil per unit area of the unit of land.
Regarding claim 11.
The method of Claim 1, wherein stratifying the unit of land into the total quantity of at least two strata comprises stratifying the unit of land into a designated quantity of strata.
Regarding claim 11.
The method of claim 1, wherein stratifying the unit of land into the total quantity of at least two of strata comprises stratifying the unit of land into a designated quantity of strata.
Regarding claim 12.
The method of Claim 11, wherein the designated quantity of strata is up to seven strata.
Regarding claim 12.
The method of claim 11, wherein the designated quantity of strata is up to seven strata.
Regarding claim 13.
The method of Claim 11, wherein stratifying the unit of land into the total quantity of at least two strata comprises determining a stratum boundary between the designated quantity of strata.
Regarding claim 13.
The method of claim 11, wherein stratifying the unit of land into the total quantity of at least two strata comprises determining a stratum boundary between the designated quantity of strata.
Regarding claim 14.
The method of Claim 13, wherein determining the stratum boundary is based, at least in part, on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 14.
The method of claim 13, wherein determining the stratum boundary is based, at least in part, on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 15.
The method of Claim 14, wherein determining the stratum boundary is based, at least in part, on a cumulative function of a square root of frequencies of occurrence of carbon derived from the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 15.
The method of claim 14, wherein determining the stratum boundary is based, at least in part, on a cumulative function of a square root of frequencies of occurrence of carbon derived from the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 16.
The method of Claim 13, wherein determining the stratum boundary comprises determining an optimum stratum boundary under Neyman allocation.
Regarding claim 16.
The method of claim 13, wherein determining the stratum boundary comprises determining an optimum stratum boundary under Neyman allocation.
Regarding claim 17.
The method of Claim 1, wherein the determination of the sample carbon content for at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations comprises using at least one of a CNS analyzer and a near infrared spectroscopic analyzer to determine the sample carbon content.
Regarding claim 17.
The method of claim 1, wherein the determination of the sample carbon content for at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations comprises using at least one of a CNS analyzer and a near infrared spectroscopic analyzer to determine the sample carbon content.
Regarding claim 18.
The method of Claim 17, wherein the sample carbon content is determined from one of a hole pushed in ground, a core pulled from the ground and a surface of the ground.
Regarding claim 18.
The method of claim 17, wherein the sample carbon content is determined from one of a hole pushed in the ground, a core pulled from the ground and a surface of the ground.
Regarding claim 19.
The method of Claim 1, wherein information related to the unit of land correlated with a soil carbon distribution associated with the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land comprises at least one of: terrain information, gamma radiometric information, climate information, geologic information, regolith information, information associated with a regional prediction of spatial distribution of carbon content, land use classification information, soil survey data, and known soil carbon information associated with the unit of land.
Regarding claim 19.
The method of claim 1, wherein the information associated with the unit of land with the soil carbon distribution is selected from a group consisting of: terrain information, gamma radiometric information, climate information, geologic information, regolith information, information associated with a regional prediction of spatial distribution of carbon content, land use classification information, soil survey data, and known soil carbon information associated with the unit of land.
Regarding claim 20.
A method of quantifying soil carbon sequestered in a unit of land by independently auditing an obtained estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land, the method comprising:
stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two strata, wherein the stratification is based, at least in part, on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land and a designated level of uncertainty associated with carbon content in the unit of land;
determining a quantity of locations to sample within each strata, the determined quantity of locations being at least one more than the total quantity of at least two strata and being based on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land;
randomly selecting a location for each of the determined quantity of locations to form a first set of locations, wherein the first set of locations are allocated between the total quantity of at least two strata;
in association with a first period of time:
for each of the first set of locations, determining a first sample carbon content;
determining, at least partially based on determined first sample carbon content for the first set of locations, a first total carbon content in the unit of land; and
randomly selecting a second location for each of the determined quantity of locations to form a second set of locations, wherein the second set of locations are allocated between the total quantity of at least two strata; and
in association with a second period of time:
for each of the second set of locations, determining a second sample carbon content;
determining, at least partially based on determined second sample carbon content for the second set of locations, a second total carbon content in the unit of land; and
determining an amount of sequestered carbon in the unit of land between the first period of time and the second period of time.
Regarding claim 20.
A method of quantifying soil carbon sequestered in a unit of land, the method comprising:
(a) obtaining an estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land by:
(i) correlating information associated with the unit of land with soil carbon distribution, and
(ii) inputting the correlated information into a carbon content prediction model to predict the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content; and
(b) thereafter, independently auditing the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land by:
(i) stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two strata, wherein the stratification is based, at least in part, on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content and a designated level of uncertainty associated with carbon content in the unit of land;
(ii) determining a quantity of locations to sample within each strata, the determined quantity of locations being at least one more than the total quantity of at least two strata and being based on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land;
(iii) randomly selecting a location for each of the determined quantity of locations to form a first set of locations, wherein the first set of locations are allocated between the total quantity of at least two strata;
(iv) during a first period of time, for each of the first set of locations, determining a first sample carbon content;
(v) determining, at least partially based on determined first sample carbon contents for the first set of locations, a first total carbon content in the unit of land;
(vi) randomly selecting a second location for each of the determined quantity of locations to form a second set of locations, wherein the second set of locations are allocated between the total quantity of at least two strata;
(vii) during a second period of time, for each of the second set of locations, determining a second sample carbon content;
(viii) determining, at least partially based on determined second sample carbon contents for the second set of locations, a second total carbon content in the unit of land; and
(ix) determining an amount of sequestered carbon in the unit of land between the first period of time and the second period of time.
Regarding claim 21.
The method of Claim 20, wherein the designated level of uncertainty associated with the carbon content in the unit of land is based on a confidence interval of at least one of the first total carbon content in the unit of land and the second total carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 21.
The method of claim 20, wherein the designated level of uncertainty associated with the carbon content in the unit of land is based on a confidence interval of at least one of the first total carbon content in the unit of land and the second total carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 22.
The method of Claim 20, wherein at least one of the determination of the first sample carbon content for at least one location of the first set of locations and the determination of the second sample carbon content for at least one location of the second set of locations is associated with a use of at least one of a CNS analyzer and a near infrared spectroscopic analyzer.
Regarding claim 22.
The method of claim 20, wherein at least one of the determination of the first sample carbon content for at least one location of the first set of locations and the determination of the second sample carbon content for at least one location of the second set of locations is associated with a use of at least one of a CNS analyzer and a near infrared spectroscopic analyzer.
Regarding claim 23.
The method of Claim 20, wherein determining the amount of sequestered carbon comprises determining a difference between the first total carbon content in the unit of land and the second total carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 23.
The method of claim 20, wherein determining the amount of sequestered carbon comprises determining a difference between the first total carbon content in the unit of land and the second total carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 24.
A method of quantifying soil carbon sequestered in a unit of land by independently auditing an obtained estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land, the method comprising:
stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two strata, wherein the stratification is based, at least in part, on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land, and a designated level of uncertainty associated with carbon content in the unit of land;
determining a quantity of locations to sample within each strata, the determined quantity of locations being at least one more than the total quantity of at least two strata and being based on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land;
randomly selecting a location for each of the determined quantity of locations to form a first set of locations, wherein the first set of locations are allocated between the total quantity of at least two strata;
in association with a first period of time:
for each of the first set of locations, determining a first sample carbon content;
determining, at least partially based on determined first sample carbon content for the first set of locations, a first total carbon content in the unit of land;
re-stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two re-stratified strata based, at least in part, on the determined first sample carbon content; and
randomly selecting a second location for each of the determined quantity of locations to form a second set of locations, wherein the second set of locations are allocated between the total quantity of at least two re-stratified strata; and
in association with a second period of time:
for each of the second set of locations, determining a second sample carbon content;
determining, at least partially based on determined second sample carbon content for the second set of locations, a second total carbon content in the unit of land; and
determining an amount of sequestered carbon in the unit of land between the first period of time and the second period of time.
Regarding claim 24.
A method of quantifying soil carbon sequestered in a unit of land, the method comprising:
(a) obtaining an estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land by:
(i) correlating information associated with the unit of land with soil carbon distribution, and
(ii) inputting the correlated information into a carbon content prediction model to predict the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content; and
(b) thereafter, independently auditing the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land by:
(i) stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two strata, wherein the stratification is based, at least in part, on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content, and a designated level of uncertainty associated with carbon content in the unit of land;
(ii) determining a quantity of locations to sample within each strata, the determined quantity of locations being at least one more than the total quantity of at least two strata and being based on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land;
(iii) randomly selecting a location for each of the determined quantity of locations to form a first set of locations, wherein the first set of locations are allocated between the total quantity of at least two strata;
(iv) during a first period of time, for each of the first set of locations, determining a first sample carbon content;
(v) determining, at least partially based on determined first sample carbon contents for the first set of locations, a first total carbon content in the unit of land;
(vi) re-stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two re-stratified strata based, at least in part, on the determined first sample carbon contents;
(vii) randomly selecting a second location for each of the determined quantity of locations to form a second set of locations, wherein the second set of locations are allocated between the total quantity of at least two re-stratified strata;
(viii) during a second period of time, for each of the second set of locations, determining a second sample carbon content;
(ix) determining, at least partially based on determined second sample carbon contents for the second set of locations, a second total carbon content in the unit of land; and
(x) determining an amount of sequestered carbon in the unit of land between the first period of time and the second period of time.
Regarding claim 25.
The method of Claim 24, wherein the designated level of uncertainty associated with the carbon content in the unit of land is based on a confidence interval of at least one of the first total carbon content in the unit of land and the second total carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 25.
The method of claim 24, wherein the designated level of uncertainty associated with the carbon content in the unit of land is based on a confidence interval of at least one of the first total carbon content in the unit of land and the second total carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 26.
The method of Claim 24, wherein at least one of the determination of the first sample carbon content associated with at least one location of the first set of locations and the determination of the second sample carbon content associated with at least one location of the second set of locations is associated with a use of at least one of a CNS analyzer and a near infrared spectroscopic analyzer.
Regarding claim 26.
The method of claim 24, wherein at least one of the determination of the first sample carbon content associated with at least one location of the first set of locations and the determination of the second sample carbon content associated with at least one location of the second set of locations is associated with a use of at least one of a CNS analyzer and a near infrared spectroscopic analyzer.
Claims 1-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 12020780. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the system claims in the U.S. Patent anticipate the claimed methods of the current application (see table for comparison wherein underlined text in some claims in the U.S. Patent indicates claimed subject matter in the current application).
Application 18/662668
US 12020780 B2
Regarding claim 1.
A method of quantifying soil carbon in a unit of land by independently auditing an obtained estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land, the method comprising:
stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two strata, wherein the stratification is based, at least in part, on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land, and a designated level of uncertainty associated with carbon content in the unit of land;
determining a quantity of locations to sample within each strata, the determined quantity of locations being at least one more than the total quantity of at least two strata and being based on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land;
randomly selecting a location for each of the determined quantity of locations, wherein randomly selected locations are allocated between the total quantity of at least two strata;
for each randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations, determining a sample carbon content; and
determining, at least partially based on determined sample carbon content for the randomly selected locations, a total carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 1.
A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
(a) obtain an estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in a unit of land by:
(i) correlating information associated with the unit of land with soil carbon distribution, and
(ii) inputting the correlated information into a carbon content prediction model to predict the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land; and
(b) thereafter, independently audit the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land by:
(i) stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two strata, wherein the stratification is based, at least in part, on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content, and a designated level of uncertainty associated with carbon content in the unit of land;
(ii) determining a quantity of locations to sample within each strata, the determined quantity of locations being at least one more than the total quantity of at least two strata and being based on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land;
(iii) randomly selecting a location for each of the determined quantity of locations, wherein randomly selected locations are allocated between the total quantity of at least two strata;
(iv) for each randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations, determining a sample carbon content; and
(v) determining, at least partially based on determined sample carbon contents for the randomly selected locations, a total carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 2.
The method of Claim 1, wherein the designated level of uncertainty associated with the carbon content in the unit of land is based on a confidence interval of the total carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 2.
The system of claim 1, wherein the designated level of uncertainty associated with the carbon content in the unit of land is based on a confidence interval of the total carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 3.
The method of Claim 1, wherein the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land comprises a regional prediction of spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 3.
The system of claim 1, wherein obtaining the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land comprises obtaining a regional prediction of spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 4.
The method of Claim 1, further comprising downscaling the information associated with the unit of land.
Regarding claim 4.
The system of claim 1, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to downscale the information associated with the unit of land.
Regarding claim 5.
The method of Claim 1, wherein determining the sample carbon content for at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations comprises determining sample carbon content in at least one layer of measured mass of soil over a determined area of the unit of land.
Regarding claim 5.
The system of claim 1, wherein determining the sample carbon content for at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations comprises determining sample carbon content in at least one layer of measured mass of soil over a determined area of the unit of land.
Regarding claim 6.
The method of Claim 5, wherein determining the sample carbon content for the at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations comprises determining at least one of: a cutting shoe diameter, a push depth, and a hole depth, associated with the measured mass of soil.
Regarding claim 6.
The system of claim 5, wherein determining the sample carbon content for the at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations comprises determining at least one of: a cutting shoe diameter, a push depth, and a hole depth, associated with the measured mass of soil.
Regarding claim 7.
The method of Claim 1, wherein determining the sample carbon content for at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations comprises determining composite carbon content from the at least one randomly selected location.
Regarding claim 7.
The system of claim 1, wherein determining the sample carbon content for at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations comprises determining composite carbon content from the at least one randomly selected location.
Regarding claim 8.
The method of Claim 7, wherein determining the composite carbon content from the at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations includes compositing at least two layers of equal mass of soil from the at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations.
Regarding claim 8.
The system of claim 7, wherein determining the composite carbon content from the at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations includes compositing at least two layers of equal mass of soil from the at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations.
Regarding claim 9.
The method of Claim 1, further comprising reporting the determined sample carbon content for at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations by at least one of absolute weight of carbon, absolute mass of carbon, percentage weight of carbon, percentage mass of carbon, fractional weight of carbon and fractional mass of carbon.
Regarding claim 9.
The system of claim 1, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to report the determined sample carbon content for at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations by at least one of absolute weight of carbon, absolute mass of carbon, percentage weight of carbon, percentage mass of carbon, fractional weight of carbon and fractional mass of carbon.
Regarding claim 10.
The method of Claim 1, wherein determining the total carbon content in the unit of land comprises determining total carbon content in a predetermined mass of soil per unit area of the unit of land.
Regarding claim 10.
The system of claim 1, wherein determining the total carbon content in the unit of land comprises determining total carbon content in a predetermined mass of soil per unit area of the unit of land.
Regarding claim 11.
The method of Claim 1, wherein stratifying the unit of land into the total quantity of at least two strata comprises stratifying the unit of land into a designated quantity of strata.
Regarding claim 11.
The system of claim 1, wherein stratifying the unit of land into the total quantity of at least two strata comprises stratifying the unit of land into a designated quantity of strata.
Regarding claim 12.
The method of Claim 11, wherein the designated quantity of strata is up to seven strata.
Regarding claim 12.
The system of claim 11, wherein the designated quantity of strata is up to seven strata.
Regarding claim 13.
The method of Claim 11, wherein stratifying the unit of land into the total quantity of at least two strata comprises determining a stratum boundary between the designated quantity of strata.
Regarding claim 13.
The system of claim 11, wherein stratifying the unit of land into the total quantity of at least two strata comprises determining a stratum boundary between the designated quantity of strata.
Regarding claim 14.
The method of Claim 13, wherein determining the stratum boundary is based, at least in part, on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 14.
The system of claim 13, wherein determining the stratum boundary is based, at least in part, on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 15.
The method of Claim 14, wherein determining the stratum boundary is based, at least in part, on a cumulative function of a square root of frequencies of occurrence of carbon derived from the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 15.
The system of claim 14, wherein determining the stratum boundary is based, at least in part, on a cumulative function of a square root of frequencies of occurrence of carbon derived from the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 16.
The method of Claim 13, wherein determining the stratum boundary comprises determining an optimum stratum boundary under Neyman allocation.
Regarding claim 16.
The system of claim 13, wherein determining the stratum boundary comprises determining an optimum stratum boundary under Neyman allocation.
Regarding claim 17.
The method of Claim 1, wherein the determination of the sample carbon content for at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations comprises using at least one of a CNS analyzer and a near infrared spectroscopic analyzer to determine the sample carbon content.
Regarding claim 17.
The system of claim 1, wherein the determination of the sample carbon content for at least one randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations comprises using at least one of a CNS analyzer and a near infrared spectroscopic analyzer to determine the sample carbon content.
Regarding claim 18.
The method of Claim 17, wherein the sample carbon content is determined from one of a hole pushed in ground, a core pulled from the ground and a surface of the ground.
Regarding claim 18.
The system of claim 17, wherein the sample carbon content is determined from one of a hole pushed in ground, a core pulled from the ground and a surface of the ground.
Regarding claim 19.
The method of Claim 1, wherein information related to the unit of land correlated with a soil carbon distribution associated with the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land comprises at least one of: terrain information, gamma radiometric information, climate information, geologic information, regolith information, information associated with a regional prediction of spatial distribution of carbon content, land use classification information, soil survey data, and known soil carbon information associated with the unit of land.
Regarding claim 19.
The system of claim 1, wherein the information associated with the unit of land with the soil carbon distribution is selected from a group consisting of: terrain information, gamma radiometric information, climate information, geologic information, regolith information, information associated with a regional prediction of spatial distribution of carbon content, land use classification information, soil survey data, and known soil carbon information associated with the unit of land.
Regarding claim 20.
A method of quantifying soil carbon sequestered in a unit of land by independently auditing an obtained estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land, the method comprising:
stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two strata, wherein the stratification is based, at least in part, on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land and a designated level of uncertainty associated with carbon content in the unit of land;
determining a quantity of locations to sample within each strata, the determined quantity of locations being at least one more than the total quantity of at least two strata and being based on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land;
randomly selecting a location for each of the determined quantity of locations to form a first set of locations, wherein the first set of locations are allocated between the total quantity of at least two strata;
in association with a first period of time:
for each of the first set of locations, determining a first sample carbon content;
determining, at least partially based on determined first sample carbon content for the first set of locations, a first total carbon content in the unit of land; and
randomly selecting a second location for each of the determined quantity of locations to form a second set of locations, wherein the second set of locations are allocated between the total quantity of at least two strata; and
in association with a second period of time:
for each of the second set of locations, determining a second sample carbon content;
determining, at least partially based on determined second sample carbon content for the second set of locations, a second total carbon content in the unit of land; and
determining an amount of sequestered carbon in the unit of land between the first period of time and the second period of time.
Regarding claim 20.
A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
(a) obtain an estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in a unit of land by:
(i) correlating information associated with the unit of land with soil carbon distribution, and
(ii) inputting the correlated information into a carbon content prediction model to predict the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content; and
(b) thereafter, independently audit the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land by:
(i) stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two strata, wherein the stratification is based, at least in part, on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content and a designated level of uncertainty associated with carbon content in the unit of land;
(ii) determining a quantity of locations to sample within each strata, the determined quantity of locations being at least one more than the total quantity of at least two strata and being based on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land;
(iii) randomly selecting a location for each of the determined quantity of locations to form a first set of locations, wherein the first set of locations are allocated between the total quantity of at least two strata;
(iv) during a first period of time, for each of the first set of locations, determining a first sample carbon content;
(v) determining, at least partially based on determined first sample carbon contents for the first set of locations, a first total carbon content in the unit of land;
(vi) randomly selecting a second location for each of the determined quantity of locations to form a second set of locations, wherein the second set of locations are allocated between the total quantity of at least two strata;
(vii) during a second period of time, for each of the second set of locations, determining a second sample carbon content;
(viii) determining, at least partially based on determined second sample carbon contents for the second set of locations, a second total carbon content in the unit of land; and
(ix) determining an amount of sequestered carbon in the unit of land between the first period of time and the second period of time.
Regarding claim 21.
The method of Claim 20, wherein the designated level of uncertainty associated with the carbon content in the unit of land is based on a confidence interval of at least one of the first total carbon content in the unit of land and the second total carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 21.
The system of claim 20, wherein the designated level of uncertainty associated with the carbon content in the unit of land is based on a confidence interval of at least one of the first total carbon content in the unit of land and the second total carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 22.
The method of Claim 20, wherein at least one of the determination of the first sample carbon content for at least one location of the first set of locations and the determination of the second sample carbon content for at least one location of the second set of locations is associated with a use of at least one of a CNS analyzer and a near infrared spectroscopic analyzer.
Regarding claim 22.
The system of claim 20, wherein at least one of the determination of the first sample carbon content for at least one location of the first set of locations and the determination of the second sample carbon content for at least one location of the second set of locations is associated with a use of at least one of a CNS analyzer and a near infrared spectroscopic analyzer.
Regarding claim 23.
The method of Claim 20, wherein determining the amount of sequestered carbon comprises determining a difference between the first total carbon content in the unit of land and the second total carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 23.
The system of claim 20, wherein determining the amount of sequestered carbon comprises determining a difference between the first total carbon content in the unit of land and the second total carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 24.
A method of quantifying soil carbon sequestered in a unit of land by independently auditing an obtained estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land, the method comprising:
stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two strata, wherein the stratification is based, at least in part, on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land, and a designated level of uncertainty associated with carbon content in the unit of land;
determining a quantity of locations to sample within each strata, the determined quantity of locations being at least one more than the total quantity of at least two strata and being based on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land;
randomly selecting a location for each of the determined quantity of locations to form a first set of locations, wherein the first set of locations are allocated between the total quantity of at least two strata;
in association with a first period of time:
for each of the first set of locations, determining a first sample carbon content;
determining, at least partially based on determined first sample carbon content for the first set of locations, a first total carbon content in the unit of land;
re-stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two re-stratified strata based, at least in part, on the determined first sample carbon content; and
randomly selecting a second location for each of the determined quantity of locations to form a second set of locations, wherein the second set of locations are allocated between the total quantity of at least two re-stratified strata; and
in association with a second period of time:
for each of the second set of locations, determining a second sample carbon content;
determining, at least partially based on determined second sample carbon content for the second set of locations, a second total carbon content in the unit of land; and
determining an amount of sequestered carbon in the unit of land between the first period of time and the second period of time.
Regarding claim 24.
A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
(a) obtain an estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in a unit of land by:
(i) correlating information associated with the unit of land with soil carbon distribution, and
(ii) inputting the correlated information into a carbon content prediction model to predict the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content; and
(b) thereafter, independently audit the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land by:
(i) stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two strata, wherein the stratification is based, at least in part, on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content, and a designated level of uncertainty associated with carbon content in the unit of land;
(ii) determining a quantity of locations to sample within each strata, the determined quantity of locations being at least one more than the total quantity of at least two strata and being based on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land;
(iii) randomly selecting a location for each of the determined quantity of locations to form a first set of locations, wherein the first set of locations are allocated between the total quantity of at least two strata;
(iv) during a first period of time, for each of the first set of locations, determining a first sample carbon content;
(v) determining, at least partially based on determined first sample carbon contents for the first set of locations, a first total carbon content in the unit of land;
(vi) re-stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two re-stratified strata based, at least in part, on the determined first sample carbon contents;
(vii) randomly selecting a second location for each of the determined quantity of locations to form a second set of locations, wherein the second set of locations are allocated between the total quantity of at least two re-stratified strata;
(viii) during a second period of time, for each of the second set of locations, determining a second sample carbon content;
(ix) determining, at least partially based on determined second sample carbon contents for the second set of locations, a second total carbon content in the unit of land; and
(x) determining an amount of sequestered carbon in the unit of land between the first period of time and the second period of time.
Regarding claim 25.
The method of Claim 24, wherein the designated level of uncertainty associated with the carbon content in the unit of land is based on a confidence interval of at least one of the first total carbon content in the unit of land and the second total carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 25.
The system of claim 24, wherein the designated level of uncertainty associated with the carbon content in the unit of land is based on a confidence interval of at least one of the first total carbon content in the unit of land and the second total carbon content in the unit of land.
Regarding claim 26.
The method of Claim 24, wherein at least one of the determination of the first sample carbon content associated with at least one location of the first set of locations and the determination of the second sample carbon content associated with at least one location of the second set of locations is associated with a use of at least one of a CNS analyzer and a near infrared spectroscopic analyzer.
Regarding claim 26.
The system of claim 24, wherein at least one of the determination of the first sample carbon content associated with at least one location of the first set of locations and the determination of the second sample carbon content associated with at least one location of the second set of locations is associated with a use of at least one of a CNS analyzer and a near infrared spectroscopic analyzer.
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over Prior Art
Claims 1-26 are distinguished over the prior art of record for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1.
Miklos (M. Miklos et al, “Mapping and comparing the distribution of soil carbon under
cropping and grazing management practices in Narrabri north-west New South Wales”,
Australian Journal of Soil Research, 6 May 2010, volume 48, pages 248-253, 256-257,
IDS reference) discloses:
A method of quantifying soil carbon in a unit of land (Fig. 3; p. 249, col. 1, section – “Overview of processes”: a process for mapping soil carbon in a unit of land (e.g., farm) is presented), the method comprising:
stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two strata (Fig. 3 – “Strata Sampling Design”; p. 249, col. 2, section “Stratification and soil sampling”: stratification of unit of land was based on interpolated sensor measurements (M-SP) resulting in 20 soil sampling strata);
determining a quantity of locations to sample within each strata (Fig. 3 - “Soil Sampling (stratified random)”; p. 249, col. 2, section “Stratification and soil sampling”: stratified random sampling was performed to determine 3 soil sampling sites within each stratum of the 20 soil sampling strata obtained (see Fig. 5); examiner interprets a quantity of locations is first determined in order to select the actual locations for sampling);
randomly selecting a location for each of the determined quantity of locations, wherein randomly selected locations are allocated between the total quantity of at least two strata (Fig. 3 - “Soil Sampling (stratified random)”; p. 249, col. 2, section “Stratification and soil sampling”: stratified random sampling was performed to determine 3 soil sampling sites within each stratum of the 20 soil sampling strata obtained (see Fig. 5); examiner interprets a quantity of locations is first determined in order to select the actual locations for sampling);
for each randomly selected location of the randomly selected locations, determining a sample carbon content (Fig. 3 - “Point estimates of Carbon”; p. 249-250, sections “MIR Spectroscopy/Spectral calibration”: collected samples are analyzed using laboratory techniques to determine total/organic/inorganic carbon content); and
determining, at least partially based on determined sample carbon content for the randomly selected locations, a total carbon content in the unit of land (Fig. 3 – “Carbon estimates of stratified areas/Continuous Soil Carbon Maps”; p. 250-252, section “Soil carbon mapping”: class maps of soil carbon are generated based on carbon data obtained from sampling and models).
Regarding “A method of quantifying soil carbon in a unit of land by independently auditing an obtained estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land;
wherein the stratification is based, at least in part, on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land; and the determined quantity of locations being based on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land”, Gibbs (Gibbs et al., Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDD a reality, 2007, Environ. Res. Lett. 2 045023, IDS reference) teaches:
“Systematic and random sampling designs are the two broad types of schemes used to estimate forest carbon stocks at the country level (Paciomik and Rypdal 2003). Systematic sampling uses a regularly spaced grid to identify plot locations across an entire region, while random sampling chooses plot locations by chance. Without stratification, both schemes may over- or under-sample because patterns in nature are inherently clumpy and not likely to be randomly distributed. Stratification of systematic and random sampling schemes by broad forest types greatly increases survey efficiency by reducing unnecessary sampling and ensuring that major variation has been captured. It is important to assess how forest carbon stocks vary across a country before designing a stratified sampling scheme (Brown 2002). This information is used to define sampling strata or broad forest categories with similar forest carbon stocks … Once a country’s forest strata have been identified, the layout and number of plots needed to achieve a desired level of precision can be determined based on standards of acceptable sampling error” (p. 6, col. 1, line 3 – col. 2, line 15: assessment of carbon stocks variation in a country (analogous to estimated spatial distribution of soil carbon content) are important for defining a stratified sampling scheme for inferring (analogous to auditing) carbon stocks for a unit of land (e.g., forest, see p. 5, col. 2, lines 5-7); without stratification, sampling techniques may over- or under-sample, therefore, in order to increase survey efficiency, the number of plots (locations) is determined after strata (which is defined based on assessment of carbon stocks variation) have been identified and based on standards of acceptable sampling error (designated level of uncertainty)); and
“Country-level forest carbon stocks can then be estimated using the statistically sampled ground-based data. Allometric relationships are first applied to the ground-based forest measurements to estimate the average carbon stocks in each forest strata (Forest C/ha). A country’s forest carbon stocks can then be estimated by applying the average carbon density values across a national land-cover map or to a forest statistics table with the same forest strata” (p. 7, col. 1, lines 3-11: country-level forest carbon stocks (analogous to soil carbon map) are created using sample ground-based data).
Gibbs (Gibbs et al., Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDD a reality, 2007, Environ. Res. Lett. 2 045023, IDS reference) further teaches:
“Information on soil types, drainage class, elevation, topography and land-use history are likely universally important to understanding the spatial distribution of carbon stocks” (p. 6, col. 2, lines 2-5: information associated with the unit of land such as soil types, elevation, topography, land-use history, etc., are useful for understanding the spatial distribution of carbon stocks); and
“Brown developed rule-based models based on climate, soils, topographic, population and land-use information to spatially extrapolate forest inventory data archived by the FAO and produce maps of forest carbon stocks in the 1980s (Brown et al 1993, Iverson et al 1994, Brown and Gaston 1995, Gaston et al 1998)” (p. 8, col. 1, par. 1: rule-based models based on information associated with the unit of land have been developed to extrapolate forest inventory data (analogous to soil carbon distribution) and produce maps of forest carbon stocks (see for example Fig. 2)).
The closest prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest:
“wherein the stratification is based, at least in part, on a designated level of uncertainty associated with carbon content in the unit of land; and
the determined quantity of locations being at least one more than the total quantity of at least two strata,”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Regarding claim 20.
Miklos (M. Miklos et al, “Mapping and comparing the distribution of soil carbon under
cropping and grazing management practices in Narrabri north-west New South Wales”,
Australian Journal of Soil Research, 6 May 2010, volume 48, pages 248-253, 256-257,
IDS reference) discloses:
A method of quantifying soil carbon sequestered in a unit of land (Fig. 3; p. 249, col. 1, section – “Overview of processes”: a process for mapping soil carbon in a unit of land (e.g., farm) is presented), the method comprising:
stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two strata (Fig. 3 – “Strata Sampling Design”; p. 249, col. 2, section “Stratification and soil sampling”: stratification of unit of land was based on interpolated sensor measurements (M-SP) resulting in 20 soil sampling strata;
determining a quantity of locations to sample within each strata (Fig. 3 - “Soil Sampling (stratified random)”; p. 249, col. 2, section “Stratification and soil sampling”: stratified random sampling was performed to determine 3 soil sampling sites within each stratum of the 20 soil sampling strata obtained (see Fig. 5); examiner interprets a quantity of locations is first determined in order to select the actual locations for sampling);
randomly selecting a location for each of the determined quantity of locations to form a first set of locations, wherein the first set of locations are allocated between the total quantity of at least two strata (Fig. 3 - “Soil Sampling (stratified random)”; p. 249, col. 2, section “Stratification and soil sampling”: stratified random sampling was performed to determine 3 soil sampling sites within each stratum of the 20 soil sampling strata obtained (see Fig. 5); examiner interprets a quantity of locations is first determined in order to select the actual locations for sampling);
in association with a first period of time:
for each of the first set of locations, determining a first sample carbon content (Fig. 3 - “Point estimates of Carbon”; p. 249-250, sections “MIR Spectroscopy/Spectral calibration”: collected samples are analyzed using laboratory techniques to determine total/organic/inorganic carbon content);
determining, at least partially based on determined first sample carbon content for the first set of locations, a first total carbon content in the unit of land (Fig. 3 – “Carbon estimates of stratified areas/Continuous Soil Carbon Maps”; p. 250-252, section “Soil carbon mapping”: class maps of soil carbon are generated based on carbon data obtained from sampling and models).
Regarding “randomly selecting a second location for each of the determined quantity of locations to form a second set of locations, wherein the second set of locations are allocated between the total quantity of at least two strata; in association with a second period of time: for each of the second set of locations, determining a second sample carbon content; determining, at least partially based on determined second sample carbon content for the second set of locations, a second total carbon content in the unit of land; and determining an amount of sequestered carbon in the unit of land between the first period of time and the second period of time”, Miklos (M. Miklos et al, “Mapping and comparing the distribution of soil carbon under cropping and grazing management practices in Narrabri north-west New South Wales”, Australian Journal of Soil Research, 6 May 2010, volume 48, pages 248-253, 256-257, IDS reference) teaches:
“The market for soil carbon trading has been slow to develop because the
requirements are that the commodity must be clearly identified, and reliably and
consistently measured, so that both short-term and long-term monitoring of carbon
sequestration can be undertaken” (p. 248, col. 2, lines 1-5: confident measurements and
analysis need to be done in order to monitor carbon sequestration), and
“This area was sampled for soil C in 1985 (McGarry et al. 1989), with 14
sampling sites on the farm. We compared measurements of organic C storage between
1985 and 2007 from these 14 sites. Figure 9 shows a decrease of organic carbon with a
mean of 0.6 kg/m2; although the means for 1985 and 2007 are not statistically different,
the data show a trend to a drop in organic carbon which may be due to agricultural
practices” (p. 255, col. 2, lines 22-28; p. 256, col. 1, line 1: examiner interprets same
procedure can be applied during both campaigns using same sampling sites, with a
difference between the two results being calculated for trend evaluation (i.e., a decrease
of organic carbon with a mean of 0.6 kg/m2); however, the procedure could be applied
using random sampling during both campaigns in order to avoid fraudulent practices).
Regarding “A method of quantifying soil carbon sequestered in a unit of land by independently auditing an obtained estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land; wherein the stratification is based, at least in part, on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land; and the determined quantity of locations being based on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land”, Gibbs (Gibbs et al., Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDD a reality, 2007, Environ. Res. Lett. 2 045023, IDS reference) teaches:
“Systematic and random sampling designs are the two broad types of schemes used to estimate forest carbon stocks at the country level (Paciomik and Rypdal 2003). Systematic sampling uses a regularly spaced grid to identify plot locations across an entire region, while random sampling chooses plot locations by chance. Without stratification, both schemes may over- or under-sample because patterns in nature are inherently clumpy and not likely to be randomly distributed. Stratification of systematic and random sampling schemes by broad forest types greatly increases survey efficiency by reducing unnecessary sampling and ensuring that major variation has been captured. It is important to assess how forest carbon stocks vary across a country before designing a stratified sampling scheme (Brown 2002). This information is used to define sampling strata or broad forest categories with similar forest carbon stocks … Once a country’s forest strata have been identified, the layout and number of plots needed to achieve a desired level of precision can be determined based on standards of acceptable sampling error” (p. 6, col. 1, line 3 – col. 2, line 15: assessment of carbon stocks variation in a country (analogous to estimated spatial distribution of soil carbon content) are important for defining a stratified sampling scheme for inferring (analogous to auditing) carbon stocks for a unit of land (e.g., forest, see p. 5, col. 2, lines 5-7); without stratification, sampling techniques may over- or under-sample, therefore, in order to increase survey efficiency, the number of plots (locations) is determined after strata (which is defined based on assessment of carbon stocks variation) have been identified and based on standards of acceptable sampling error (designated level of uncertainty)); and
“Country-level forest carbon stocks can then be estimated using the statistically sampled ground-based data. Allometric relationships are first applied to the ground-based forest measurements to estimate the average carbon stocks in each forest strata (Forest C/ha). A country’s forest carbon stocks can then be estimated by applying the average carbon density values across a national land-cover map or to a forest statistics table with the same forest strata” (p. 7, col. 1, lines 3-11: country-level forest carbon stocks (analogous to soil carbon map) are created using sample ground-based data).
Gibbs (Gibbs et al., Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDD a reality, 2007, Environ. Res. Lett. 2 045023, IDS reference) further teaches:
“Information on soil types, drainage class, elevation, topography and land-use history are likely universally important to understanding the spatial distribution of carbon stocks” (p. 6, col. 2, lines 2-5: information associated with the unit of land such as soil types, elevation, topography, land-use history, etc., are useful for understanding the spatial distribution of carbon stocks); and
“Brown developed rule-based models based on climate, soils, topographic, population and land-use information to spatially extrapolate forest inventory data archived by the FAO and produce maps of forest carbon stocks in the 1980s (Brown et al 1993, Iverson et al 1994, Brown and Gaston 1995, Gaston et al 1998)” (p. 8, col. 1, par. 1: rule-based models based on information associated with the unit of land have been developed to extrapolate forest inventory data (analogous to soil carbon distribution) and produce maps of forest carbon stocks (see for example Fig. 2)).
The closest prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest:
“wherein the stratification is based, at least in part, on a designated level of uncertainty associated with carbon content in the unit of land; and
the determined quantity of locations being at least one more than the total quantity of at least two strata,”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Regarding claim 24.
Miklos (M. Miklos et al, “Mapping and comparing the distribution of soil carbon under
cropping and grazing management practices in Narrabri north-west New South Wales”,
Australian Journal of Soil Research, 6 May 2010, volume 48, pages 248-253, 256-257,
IDS reference) discloses:
A method of quantifying soil carbon sequestered in a unit of land (Fig. 3; p. 249, col. 1, section – “Overview of processes”: a process for mapping soil carbon in a unit of land (e.g., farm) is presented), the method comprising:
stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two strata (Fig. 3 – Strata Sampling Design”; p. 249, col. 2, section “Stratification and soil sampling”: stratification of unit of land was based on interpolated sensor measurements (M-SP) resulting in 20 soil sampling strata);
determining a quantity of locations to sample within each strata (Fig. 3 - “Soil Sampling (stratified random)”; p. 249, col. 2, section “Stratification and soil sampling”: stratified random sampling was performed to determine 3 soil sampling sites within each stratum of the 20 soil sampling strata obtained (see Fig. 5); examiner interprets a quantity of locations is first determined in order to select the actual locations for sampling);
randomly selecting a location for each of the determined quantity of locations to form a first set of locations, wherein the first set of locations are allocated between the total quantity of at least two strata (Fig. 3 - “Soil Sampling (stratified random)”; p. 249, col. 2, section “Stratification and soil sampling”: stratified random sampling was performed to determine 3 soil sampling sites within each stratum of the 20 soil sampling strata obtained (see Fig. 5); examiner interprets a quantity of locations is first determined in order to select the actual locations for sampling);
in association with a first period of time:
for each of the first set of locations, determining a first sample carbon content (Fig. 3 - “Point estimates of Carbon”; p. 249-250, sections “MIR Spectroscopy/Spectral calibration”: collected samples are analyzed using laboratory techniques to determine total/organic/inorganic carbon content); and
determining, at least partially based on determined first sample carbon content for the first set of locations, a first total carbon content in the unit of land (Fig. 3 – “Carbon estimates of stratified areas/Continuous Soil Carbon Maps”; p. 250-252, section “Soil carbon mapping”: class maps of soil carbon are generated based on carbon data obtained from sampling and models).
Regarding “re-stratifying the unit of land into a total quantity of at least two re-stratified strata based, at least in part, on the determined first sample carbon content; randomly selecting a second location for each of the determined quantity of locations to form a second set of locations, wherein the second set of locations are allocated between the total quantity of at least two re-stratified strata; in association with a second period of time: for each of the second set of locations, determining a second sample carbon content; determining, at least partially based on determined second sample carbon content for the second set of locations, a second total carbon content in the unit of land; and determining an amount of sequestered carbon in the unit of land between the first period of time and the second period of time”, Miklos (M. Miklos et al, “Mapping and comparing the distribution of soil carbon under cropping and grazing management practices in Narrabri north-west New South Wales”, Australian Journal of Soil Research, 6 May 2010, volume 48, pages 248-253, 256-257, IDS reference) teaches:
“The market for soil carbon trading has been slow to develop because the requirements are that the commodity must be clearly identified, and reliably and consistently measured, so that both short-term and long-term monitoring of carbon sequestration can be undertaken” (p. 248, col. 2, lines 1-5: confident measurements and analysis need to be done in order to monitor carbon sequestration), and
“This area was sampled for soil C in 1985 (McGarry et al. 1989), with 14 sampling sites on the farm. We compared measurements of organic C storage between 985 and 2007 from these 14 sites. Figure 9 shows a decrease of organic carbon with a mean of 0.6 kg/m2; although the means for 1985 and 2007 are not statistically different, the data show a trend to a drop in organic carbon which may be due to agricultural practices” (p. 255, col. 2, lines 22-28; p. 256, col. 1, line 1: examiner interprets same procedure can be applied during both campaigns using same sampling sites, with a difference between the two results being calculated for trend evaluation (i.e., a decrease of organic carbon with a mean of 0.6 kg/m2); however, the procedure could be applied using random sampling during both campaigns in order to avoid fraudulent practices).
Regarding “A method of quantifying soil carbon sequestered in a unit of land by independently auditing an obtained estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land; wherein the stratification is based, at least in part, on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land; and the determined quantity of locations being based on the estimated spatial distribution of carbon content in the unit of land”, Gibbs (Gibbs et al., Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDD a reality, 2007, Environ. Res. Lett. 2 045023, IDS reference) teaches:
“Systematic and random sampling designs are the two broad types of schemes used to estimate forest carbon stocks at the country level (Paciomik and Rypdal 2003). Systematic sampling uses a regularly spaced grid to identify plot locations across an entire region, while random sampling chooses plot locations by chance. Without stratification, both schemes may over- or under-sample because patterns in nature are inherently clumpy and not likely to be randomly distributed. Stratification of systematic and random sampling schemes by broad forest types greatly increases survey efficiency by reducing unnecessary sampling and ensuring that major variation has been captured. It is important to assess how forest carbon stocks vary across a country before designing a stratified sampling scheme (Brown 2002). This information is used to define sampling strata or broad forest categories with similar forest carbon stocks … Once a country’s forest strata have been identified, the layout and number of plots needed to achieve a desired level of precision can be determined based on standards of acceptable sampling error” (p. 6, col. 1, line 3 – col. 2, line 15: assessment of carbon stocks variation in a country (analogous to estimated spatial distribution of soil carbon content) are important for defining a stratified sampling scheme for inferring (analogous to auditing) carbon stocks for a unit of land (e.g., forest, see p. 5, col. 2, lines 5-7); without stratification, sampling techniques may over- or under-sample, therefore, in order to increase survey efficiency, the number of plots (locations) is determined after strata (which is defined based on assessment of carbon stocks variation) have been identified and based on standards of acceptable sampling error (designated level of uncertainty)); and
“Country-level forest carbon stocks can then be estimated using the statistically sampled ground-based data. Allometric relationships are first applied to the ground-based forest measurements to estimate the average carbon stocks in each forest strata (Forest C/ha). A country’s forest carbon stocks can then be estimated by applying the average carbon density values across a national land-cover map or to a forest statistics table with the same forest strata” (p. 7, col. 1, lines 3-11: country-level forest carbon stocks (analogous to soil carbon map) are created using sample ground-based data).
Gibbs (Gibbs et al., Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDD a reality, 2007, Environ. Res. Lett. 2 045023, IDS reference) further teaches:
“Information on soil types, drainage class, elevation, topography and land-use history are likely universally important to understanding the spatial distribution of carbon stocks” (p. 6, col. 2, lines 2-5: information associated with the unit of land such as soil types, elevation, topography, land-use history, etc., are useful for understanding the spatial distribution of carbon stocks); and
“Brown developed rule-based models based on climate, soils, topographic, population and land-use information to spatially extrapolate forest inventory data archived by the FAO and produce maps of forest carbon stocks in the 1980s (Brown et al 1993, Iverson et al 1994, Brown and Gaston 1995, Gaston et al 1998)” (p. 8, col. 1, par. 1: rule-based models based on information associated with the unit of land have been developed to extrapolate forest inventory data (analogous to soil carbon distribution) and produce maps of forest carbon stocks (see for example Fig. 2)).
The closest prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest:
“wherein the stratification is based, at least in part, on a designated level of uncertainty associated with carbon content in the unit of land; and
the determined quantity of locations being at least one more than the total quantity of at least two strata,”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Regarding claims 2-19, 21-23 and 25-26.
They are also distinguished over the prior art of record due to their dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kelle; Olavi et al., US 8111924 B2¸ Remote sensing and probabilistic sampling based method for determining the carbon dioxide volume of a forest
Reference discloses determination of carbon dioxide volume in a forest based on remote sensing and probabilistic sampling.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9969. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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 571-272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights