DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
The Amendment filed April 14, 2026 has been entered. Claims 13-24 have been amended; claims 25-28 are new; and claims 1-12 have been cancelled previously. Claims 13-28 are currently pending and examined herein.
Status of the Rejection
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each objection and 112(d) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed January 14, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have partially overcome 112(b) rejections Except claims 21-22 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed January 14, 2026.
New grounds of claim objection are necessitated by the amendment as outlined below.
New grounds of claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are necessitated by the amendment as outlined below.
All 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections from the previous office action are essentially maintained and modified in response to the amendment as outline below.
Claim Objection
Claims 22, 25-26 and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 22: please amend “the prior information” to -- the respective prior information--; “the selected prior information” to -- the selected respective prior information--; “the measurement area” to -- the respective measurement area--; “the reaction agent parameter” to -- the at least one reaction agent parameter--.
Claim 25: please amend “The device according to claim 20” to -- The [[device]] method according to claim 20--.
Claim 26: please amend “The device according to claim 22” to -- The [[device]] method according to claim 22--.
Claim 28: please amend “the respective prior information” to -- the --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites “the sensor data”, which lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, the scope of claim 21 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 recites “the at least one measured value”, which lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, the scope of claim 22 is indefinite.
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 13-28 are rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Regarding independent claim 13, Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 13 is directed to a method for removing a quantified amount of carbon dioxide from atmosphere, comprising the following steps: “quantifying the amount of carbon dioxide chemically bound within the time interval with aid of the reaction agent on the ground, wherein the quantifying step includes the sub-steps of … determining the amount of the bound carbon dioxide as a function of both the at least one reaction agent parameter and the respective measured value or the respective measured values”. The amount of the bound carbon dioxide is calculated by using a mathematical model based on the input data of both the at least one reaction agent parameter and the respective measured value or the respective measured values, which is an abstract idea, because it could be a mental process performed in the human mind and/or mathematical-calculation. [Para. 0067] in instant specification discloses: “One possible procedure for determining the amount of the bound carbon dioxide will be explained hereinafter with additional reference to FIG. 2 , which shows the interaction of algorithms and data structures relevant for this purpose. In this case, the calculations are carried out by a processing device 10, which can be a server, for example. A computer program 13 stored in a memory 12 is executed by a processor 11 in order to implement the steps of the method”. The additional steps of “distributing ground rock on a ground as a reaction agent; and chemically binding carbon dioxide to the reaction agent on the ground over a time interval” are well known to the pertinent industry as enhanced weathering for carbon dioxide removal. For example, Webb (The law of enhanced weathering for carbon removal, Sabin Center for climate change law, September 2020) teaches enhanced weathering aiming to accelerate natural processes in which carbon dioxide reacts with silicate-rich rocks in the presence of water. The reaction releases carbonate or bicarbonate ions, which either form carbonate minerals on land or are washed into the oceans. In the latter situation, the flow of ions into the oceans also increases the alkalinity of the water, enabling it to absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Research shows that natural weathering process can be enhanced by grinding silicate rocks to increase their surface area and then spreading them over land or ocean waters. Researchers have proposed applying ground rock to agricultural land or other types of land (the 3rd- 4th paragraphs on page 3 and 1st paragraph on page 4; and section 2.1). Similarly, the additional steps of “reading in at least one reaction agent parameter relating to the reaction agent, acquiring a respective measured value for a conductivity of the ground and/or for a respective cationic concentration of at least one cation in the ground by way of at least one sensor attached in or on the ground” are essentially drawn to data collection to collect the input data of both the at least one reaction agent parameter and the respective measured value or the respective measured values, and are just insignificant extra-solution activity as a mere data-gathering step, which are simply routine and conventional steps previously known to the pertinent industry. For example, Jewell et al. (Bulk electric conductivity response to soli and rock CO2 concentration during controlled CO2 release experiments: observations and analytic modeling, Geophysics, 2015, 80, E293-E308) teaches reading in at least one reaction agent parameter relating to the reaction agent (soil temperature and soil VWC as input data in Fig.1), and acquiring a respective measured value for the conductivity of the ground (soil EC as shown Figs. 6d; monitoring EC to infer soil CO2 for CO2 leakage detection [Conclusion]). Zhou et al. (Experimental observation of signature changes in bulk soil electrical conductivity in response to engineered surface CO2 leakage, Int. Journal of Greenhouse gas control, 2012, 7, 20-29) teaches at least one sensor to measure soil EC, soil moisture, and soil temperature (Fig.1). Mansergh et al. (US20220268728A1) teaches a sensor assembly has a soil temperature sensor, an electrical conductivity (EC) sensor, a moisture sensor, an ion-sensitive field effect transistor (ISFET) nitrate sensor for detecting nitrates in adjacent soil, an ISFET phosphate sensor for detecting phosphates in adjacent soil, an ISFET potassium sensor for detecting potassium in adjacent soil, and an ISFET pH sensor for detecting pH in adjacent soil (abstract). At least one ISFET sensor of the sub-array includes a single-layer ruggedized membrane or a multi-layer ruggedized membrane for the selective detection of at least one of: ammonium, calcium, carbonate, chloride, nitrate, phosphate, potassium, sodium, or sulfate, in adjacent soil [para. 0003]. Sui et al. (Wireless sensor network for monitoring soil moisture and weather conditions, Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 2015, 31, 193-200) teaches wireless sensor network consisting of soil moisture sensors and weather sensors to collect weather data coupled with the soil moisture and soil temperature data and wirelessly transmit the data onto a computer in the lab via the internet , wherein the weather conditions include precipitation, relative humidity, air temperature, wind speed and direction, solar radiation (abstract, the first paragraph in Results and Discussion on page 197; and the first paragraph in Col. 2 on page 197). The additional steps serve to obtain the at least one reaction agent parameter relating to the reaction agent (such as soil temperature or moisture), the respective measured value (soil EC) or the respective measured values (soil EC and respective cationic concentration) as a mere data-gather step and the gathered data is then processed for implementing the abstract idea of calculating the amount of the bound carbon dioxide with an algorithm or mathematical model.
Claim 13 is ineligible due to the following analysis:
Step 1 (Statutory Category): Claim 13 is directed to a method for removing a quantified amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a method (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claim 13 recites: “quantifying the amount of carbon dioxide chemically bound within the time interval with aid of the reaction agent on the ground, wherein the quantifying step includes the sub-steps of … determining the amount of the bound carbon dioxide as a function of both the at least one reaction agent parameter and the respective measured value or the respective measured values”, which is an abstract idea since the amount of the bound carbon dioxide is determined by using an algorithm or mathematical calculation implemented in a computer program based on the gathered data of the at least one reaction agent parameter and the respective measured value or the respective measured values. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim(s) is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): the abstract idea related to determine the amount of the bound carbon dioxide as a function of both the at least one reaction agent parameter and the respective measured value or the respective measured values, is not used into a practical application, and do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field since nothing is done after the determining step. The additional limitations “distributing ground rock on a ground as a reaction agent”; and “chemically binding carbon dioxide to the reaction agent on the ground over a time interval” are natural weathering process in enhanced weathering (see the 3rd and 4th paragraphs on page 3 in Webb). The other additional limitations “reading in at least one reaction agent parameter relating to the reaction agent”, and “acquiring a respective measured value for a conductivity of the ground and/or for a respective cationic concentration of at least one cation in the ground by way of at least one sensor attached in or on the ground” are drawn to data collection to collect the input data of both the at least one reaction agent parameter and the respective measured value or the respective measured values, thus would not be considered a particular practical application, since they serve to obtain the at least one reaction agent parameter relating to the reaction agent (such as soil temperature or moisture), the respective measured value (soil EC) or the respective measured values (soil EC and respective cationic concentration) as a mere data-gathering step to provide the input data for implementing the abstract idea of calculating the amount of the bound carbon dioxide with an algorithm or mathematical model. None of the dependent claims 14-28 use the computed/determined amount of the bound carbon dioxide to solve a practical application. Consequently, the aforesaid abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, and/or use to an additional element or elements or process in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit, thus, monopolizing the steps (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO, because there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application).
Step 2B (the claim(s) is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claim 13 recites the additional steps: “distributing ground rock on a ground as a reaction agent”; and “chemically binding carbon dioxide to the reaction agent on the ground over a time interval”, which are just insignificant extra-solution activity since they are natural weathering process in enhanced weathering (see the 3rd and 4th paragraphs on page 3 in Webb). The other additional steps: “reading in at least one reaction agent parameter relating to the reaction agent”, and “acquiring a respective measured value for a conductivity of the ground and/or for a respective cationic concentration of at least one cation in the ground by way of at least one sensor attached in or on the ground”, are just insignificant extra-solution activity as a mere data-gathering step to gather/collect the input data of both the at least one reaction agent parameter and the respective measured value or the respective measured values”, which are also routine and conventional steps previously known to the pertinent industry to collect/measure the at least one reaction agent parameter relating to the reaction agent (such as soil temperature or moisture), the respective measured value (soil EC) or the respective measured values (soil EC and respective cationic concentration) as input data for implementing the abstract idea of calculating the amount of the bound carbon dioxide with an algorithm. As explained above, the prior art of Jewells, Zhou, Mansergh, and/or Sui teaches the claimed routine data collection steps to obtain data related to soil EC, temperature, moisture and cationic concentrations of various cations in soil. Webb teaches the natural weathering process for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by spreading rocks over land wherein the rocks react with CO2 to form the bound carbon dioxide. Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s)/processes significantly more, and/or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding dependent claims 14-28, claims 14-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 14-28 depend on the independent claim 13, therefore, have the abstract idea of claim 13 and also have the routine and conventional steps of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 further recites the amount of the bound carbon dioxide is determined in additional dependence on additional sensor data of the at least one sensor and/or at least one further sensor, wherein the additional sensor data relate to a vertical water flow in the ground and/or an amount of precipitation and/or a moisture in the ground and/or an alkalinity and/or a nutrient content of the ground and/or a partial pressure of carbon dioxide in air above the ground. The amount of the bound carbon dioxide is determined/computed based on additional sensor data measured by sensor(s) with an algorithm or mathematical model. There is no action related to the use of the determined amount of the bound carbon dioxide. As explained above, the prior art of the record teaches sensors to measure the related sensor data such as soil moisture (soil VWC in Fig.1 of Jewells; soil moisture in Fig.1 of Zhou; and a moisture sensor [abstract in Mansergh]) and an amount of precipitation (weather conditions including precipitation [the first paragraph in Results and Discussion on page 197 of Sui]). As stated before, collecting various data are just insignificant extra-solution activity as a mere data-gathering step, which is simply routine and conventional step previously known to the pertinent industry that includes sensors for acquiring data.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 further recites the amount of the bound carbon dioxide is determined in additional dependence on additional sensor data of the at least one sensor and/or at least one further sensor, wherein the additional sensor data relate to a pH value and/or a temperature of the ground. The amount of the bound carbon dioxide is determined/computed based on sensor data measured by sensor(s) with an algorithm. There is no action related to the use of the determined amount of the bound carbon dioxide. As explained above, the prior art of the record teaches sensors to measure the related sensor data such as pH (an ISFET pH sensor for detecting pH in adjacent soil [abstract in Mansergh]) and temperature (soil temperature in Fig.1 of Jewells; soil temperature in Fig.1 of Zhou; and a soil temperature sensor [abstract in Mansergh]). As stated before, collecting various data are just insignificant extra-solution activity as a mere data-gathering step, which is simply routine and conventional step previously known to the pertinent industry that includes sensors for acquiring data.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 further recites a computation step: “which is multiplied by a correction factor”, and there is no further action related to the use of the determined amount of the bound carbon dioxide.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 further recites a respective concentration of sodium ions and/or of calcium ions and/or of magnesium ions is acquired as the respective cation concentration. Note that the cation concentration is an input data for the algorithm to compute the amount of the amount of the bound carbon dioxide. Ion sensors for measuring sodium ions and/or of calcium ions and/or of magnesium ions are routine and well known. For example, Mansergh teaches at least one ISFET sensor of the sub-array includes a single-layer ruggedized membrane or a multi-layer ruggedized membrane for the selective detection of at least one of: ammonium, calcium, carbonate, chloride, nitrate, phosphate, potassium, sodium, or sulfate, in adjacent soil [para. 0003]. There is no further action related to the use of the determined amount of the bound carbon dioxide. As stated before, collecting various data including respective cationic concentrations by respective sensor(s) are just insignificant extra-solution activity as a mere data-gathering step, which is simply routine and conventional step previously known to the pertinent industry that includes sensors for acquiring data.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 further recites another abstract idea of
at least one intermediate result determined from the respective measured value from a measurement position. Claim 18 further recites additional structural elements of sensor(s) wirelessly transmitted to a processing device, which carries out the determination of the amount of the bound carbon dioxide. Sensor(s) wirelessly transmitted measurement data to a processing device is routine and conventional elements previously known to the pertinent industry. For example, Sui teaches wireless soil sensors wirelessly transmit the measured data to a computer in the lab via the internet (the first paragraph in Results and Discussion on page 197). Miller et al. (US20150323491A1) teaches a soil chemistry sensor for in-situ soil chemistry sensing (abstract) , wherein a plurality of sensor probes are coupled to a data logger which wirelessly transmits the collected data to a computer network (Fig.3 and [para. 0068]).
Mansergh also teaches the sensor assembly including wireless communications hardware [para. 0041]. Note that there is no further action related to the use of the determined amount of the bound carbon dioxide. Wirelessly collecting various data is just insignificant extra-solution activity as a mere data-gathering step, which is simply routine and conventional step previously known to the pertinent industry that includes wireless sensors for acquiring data, which are then provided to the processing device (computer) for implementing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 further recites the abstract idea of determining the amount of the bound carbon dioxide based on sensor data acquired several times a day or several times per hour. There is no further action related to the use of the determined amount of the bound carbon dioxide. Note that Jewells teaches wherein the soil EC, temperature and VWC are measured as a function of time, as shown in Figs.6 and 8. Zhou also teaches measuring the soil moisture and temperature as a function of time as shown in Fig.3. Sui teaches collecting the weather information and soil moisture and temperature data in a time interval of 1 h (see Table 3 and the first paragraph in Col.2 on page 197). Note that “wherein several times a day or several times per hour the respective measured value or the respective measured values are acquired” only serves to obtain the input data for implementing the abstract idea of the determining the amount of the bound carbon dioxide with an algorithm to compute the amount of the bound carbon dioxide with the measured value(s), and is just insignificant extra-solution activity as a mere data-gathering step.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites “wherein the respective measured value or at least one of the respective measured values are acquired at multiple measurement positions by a respective sensor of the at least one sensor”, which serves to collect/obtain the respective measure value or at least one of the respective measured values, as input data for implementing the abstract idea of calculating the amount of the bound carbon dioxide with an algorithm, and is just insignificant extra-solution activity as a mere data-gathering step. There is no further action related to the use of the determined amount of the bound carbon dioxide. Note that Jewells teaches the data sets collected at the CO2-Vadose Project site and used for this study include LB, LMB, and LMH data sets (LB, LMB and LMH denote three different vertical locations of sensor in the lateral pillar wall of the injection room) (the first paragraph in Col. 2 on page E304). Xie et al. (Spatial and temporal variability of soil salinity in the Yangtze River Estuary using electromagnetic induction, Remote Sensing, 2021, 13, 1875) teaches the selected soil samples were obtained using soil drilling at depths of 0-20 cm, 20-40 cm, 40-60 cm, 60-80 cm, and 80-100 cm. Soil EC and soluble salt content were measured (the first and second paragraphs on page 5). Thus, sensor data measured at different measurement positions spaced apart from one another is also routine and conventional process previously known to the pertinent industry. There is no further action related to the use of the determined amount of the bound carbon dioxide.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 further recites an abstract idea of an additional determination of the amount of the bound carbon dioxide is made as a function of prior information, which is an alkalinity and/or a porosity and/or a soil type of the ground and/or fungi and/or bacteria present in the ground of a soil sample taken from the ground and studied in a lab. There is no further action related to the use of the determined amount of the bound carbon dioxide. Note that taking a soil sample from the ground and then determining an alkalinity and/or a porosity and/or a soil type of the ground and/or fungi and/or bacteria present in the ground in the lab is well known traditional soil sampling method. For example, Xie teaches the traditional soil drilling sampling method to determine the soil electrical conductivity and soil salt content. Drilled soil samples were naturally ai-dried, crushed and sieved before laboratory analysis. Soil EC was measured using conductivity meter. The soil soluble salt content was determined using the ion summation method. Conventional soil analysis methods were applied in the laboratory analysis of sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, chlorine, sulphate, carbonate and bicarbonate (the 1st and 2nd paragraphs on page 5 and Fig.1). Bai et al. (Remote sensing of soil alkalinity and salinity in the Wuyu’er Shuangyang River Basin, Northeast China, Remote Sensing, 2016, 8, 163) teaches remote sensing of soil alkalinity. Furthermore, the traditional method of obtaining the prior information of a soil sample in the laboratory analysis only serves to obtain the data which is further processed by the abstract idea of determining the amount of the bound carbon dioxide. Data gathering is just insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, and/or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 further recites an abstract idea of determining the amount of the bound carbon dioxide or an intermediate result based on prior information, wherein the prior art information is obtained from a respective measurement area of multiple areas with position information assigned to the respective measurement area. There is no further action related to the use of the determined amount of the bound carbon dioxide. Note that measuring data from different measurement areas with position information assigned to the respective measurement area is well known. For example, Xie teaches multiple soil sampling points as shown in Fig.3. GPS information, ECa and temperature at each sampling point were collected (the first paragraph on page 5). Bai also teaches sensing soil alkalinity (title) and the GPS locations of all sample points were recorded (section 2.2.1).
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 recites a device comprising at least one sensor
for acquiring respective measured values for a conductivity of the ground and/or for a respective cation concentration of at least one cation in the ground and a processing device, wherein the device is configured for carrying out the quantifying of the amount of carbon dioxide chemically bond within the time interval in the method according to claim 13. At least one sensor for acquiring respective measured values for a conductivity of the ground and/or for a respective cation concentration of at least one cation in the ground and a processing device are routine and previously known to the pertinent industry. For example, Zhou teaches at least one sensor to measure soil EC, soil moisture, and soil temperature (Fig.1). Mansergh teaches a sensor assembly has a soil temperature sensor, an electrical conductivity (EC) sensor, a moisture sensor, an ion-sensitive field effect transistor (ISFET) nitrate sensor for detecting nitrates in adjacent soil, an ISFET phosphate sensor for detecting phosphates in adjacent soil, an ISFET potassium sensor for detecting potassium in adjacent soil, and an ISFET pH sensor for detecting pH in adjacent soil. At least one ISFET sensor of the sub-array includes a single-layer ruggedized membrane or a multi-layer ruggedized membrane for the selective detection of at least one of: ammonium, calcium, carbonate, chloride, nitrate, phosphate, potassium, sodium, or sulfate, in adjacent soil (abstract and [para. 0003]). Miller teaches a plurality of soil sensor probes wirelessly coupled to a computer (Fig.3). Sui teaches wireless sensor network sensing weather conditions, soil moisture and temperature and the measured data is transmitted to a computer in the lab via the internet (Results and discussion on page 197). The at least one sensor serves to obtain the respective measured values for implementing the abstract idea of determining the amount of the bound carbon dioxide by the processing device with an algorithm. There is no further action related to the use of the determined amount of the bound carbon dioxide obtained from the method of claim 13.
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 further recite additional structural elements such as at least one measurement module, comprising a housing designed to be inserted into the ground, the at least one sensor, a communication device for wirelessly transmitting data to the processing device, and at least one energy supply for supplying the communication device and the at least one sensor. The additional structural elements are routine and previously known to the pertinent industry. For example, Mansergh teaches the sensor assembly (corresponding to the claimed at least one measurement module) is an elongate stake suitable for insertion into the ground, with multiple sensors positioned therein and/or thereon at defined levels, for detecting and reporting nutrient levels (and/or other conditions) at corresponding levels/depths in soil [para. 0040]. The sensor assembly includes a suite of sensors in a sensor probe head (or “probe head”), which includes wireless communications hardware [para. 0041]. Fig.3 shows the sensor assembly comprising a housing designed to be inserted into the ground, the at least one sensor, and the wireless communications hardware (antenna) for wirelessly transmitting data to the processing device, and at least one energy supply for supplying the communication device and the at least one sensor (the ISFET device operates under a constant-voltage, constant-current bias scheme; see voltage source Vsupply in Fig.17 [para.0081]; the voltage source is configured to supply power to the communication device and the at least one sensor). Furthermore, Miller teaches a power supply 308 for supplying power to the communication device 310 and the at least one sensor (probes 100 a-n) as shown in Fig.3. Note that the additional structural elements serve to obtain the measured values to be processed by implementing the abstract idea on the processing device, and there is no action related to the use of the calculated/determined amount of the bound carbon dioxide.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 recites “wherein the multiple measurement positions are spaced apart from one another by less than 500 m or less than 200 m”, which serves to collect/obtain the measure value or at least one of the measured values and/or the sensor data, as input data for implementing the abstract idea of calculating the amount of the bound carbon dioxide with an algorithm, and is just insignificant extra-solution activity as a mere data-gathering step. As outlined in the rejection for claim 20 above, Xie et al. (Spatial and temporal variability of soil salinity in the Yangtze River Estuary using electromagnetic induction, Remote Sensing, 2021, 13, 1875) teaches the selected soil samples were obtained using soil drilling at depths of 0-20 cm, 20-40 cm, 40-60 cm, 60-80 cm, and 80-100 cm. Thus, sensor data measured at different measurement positions spaced apart from one another by less than 500 m or less than 200 m is also routine and conventional process previously known to the pertinent industry. There is no further action related to the use of the determined amount of the bound carbon dioxide.
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 further recites wherein the respective prior information relates to an alkalinity and/or a porosity and/or a soil type of the ground and/or fungi and/or bacteria present in the ground and/or a planting of the ground and/or weather, and the amount of the bound carbon dioxide or an intermediate result are determined based on the above prior information by using an algorithm or mathematical calculation implemented in a computer program based on the gathered prior information. There is no further action related to the use of the determined amount of the bound carbon dioxide.
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 further recites the abstract idea of determining the amount of the bound carbon dioxide based on the additional sensor data acquired several times a day or several times per hour. There is no further action related to the use of the determined amount of the bound carbon dioxide. Note that “the additional sensor data acquired several times a day or several times per hour” only serves to obtain the input data for implementing the abstract idea of the determining the amount of the bound carbon dioxide with an algorithm to compute the amount of the bound carbon dioxide with the measured value(s), and is just insignificant extra-solution activity as a mere data-gathering step.
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 further recites wherein the prior information is determined on the basis of the soil sample, which serves to collect the prior information. The amount of the bound carbon dioxide is determined/computed based on the prior information with an algorithm. There is no action related to the use of the determined amount of the bound carbon dioxide.
Therefore, dependent claims 14-28 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks Pg. 12, filed 4/14/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #1:
Applicant argues at page 12 that the claims are directed to a method for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which is much more than simply an abstract idea.
Examiner’s Response #1:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive since the improvement is tied to the abstract idea itself (determining) and not an improvement to the computer functioning like that in Desjardins. MPEP 2106.05(a) "it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology."
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIZHI QIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3487. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luan V Van can be reached on 571-272-8521. 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).
/SHIZHI QIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights