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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/12/2024 and 5/13/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objection
Claims 13-24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13: please amend “the aid of a reaction agent on the ground” to – [[the]] an aid of a reaction agent on [[the]] a ground--; “the conductivity of the ground” to – [[the]] a conductivity of the ground--; “the reaction parameter” to – the at least one reaction parameter--; “the measured value or the measured values” to -- the respective measured value or the respective measured values--.
Claim 14: please amend “the sensor” to –the at least one sensor--; “the air” to –[[the]] air--.
Claim 15: please amend “the sensor” to –the at least one sensor--.
Claim 16: please amend “the reaction agent parameter” to -- the at least one reaction agent parameter--; “the measured value” to -- the respective measured value --; “the measured values” to --the respective measured values--.
Claim 17: please amend “the concentration of sodium ions and/or of calcium ions and/or of magnesium ions” to –[[the]] a respective concentration of sodium ions and/or of calcium ions and/or of magnesium ions--; “the cation concentration” to – “the respective cation concentration--.
Claim 18: please amend “the measured value” to -- the respective measured value –; “the respective sensor or the respective sensors is or are” to --the respective sensor is or the respective sensors [[is or]] are--.
Claims 19-20: please amend “the measured value” to -- the respective measured value –; “the measured values” to --the respective measured values--.
Claim 20: please amend “the measurement positions are in particular spaced” to -- the multiple measurement positions are
Claim 21: please amend “in particular in the area of “ to – an area of --; “the respective sensor or the respective sensors is or are “ to -- the respective sensor is or the respective sensors [[is or]] are --; “in particular spaced apart from the sample location” to --
Claim 22: please amend “wherein a respective item of prior information” to -- wherein a respective [[item of]] prior information--; “which in particular relates to “ to – which respective measurement area of the multiple areas--; “the sensor “ to -- the at least one sensor --; “an item of position information” to –respective measurement area--.
Claim 23: please amend “the aid of a reaction agent on the ground” to – [[the]] an aid of a reaction agent on [[the]] a ground--; “measured values” to – respective measured values --; “ the conductivity” to -- [[the]] a conductivity--.
Claim 24: please amend “wherein it comprises” to -- further comprises --; “at least one sensor” to –the at least one sensor--; “measured values” to –the respective measured values--; “the sensor” to –the at least one sensor--; “the measured value “ to -- the respective measured values --.
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 14-16, and 18-22 is 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 14, claim 14 recites “wherein the amount of the bound carbon dioxide is determined as a function of sensor data of the at least one sensor and/or at least one further sensor, wherein the 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 the air above the ground”. Note that the sensor data recited in claim 14 is different from the conductivity of the ground and respective cationic concentration of at least one cation. Claim 13 recites “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”. Thus, when the amount of the bound carbon dioxide is determined as a function of sensor data of the at least one sensor, wherein the sensor data is different from those recited in claim 13, it contradicts with “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” recited in claim 13. Thus, it is unclear if the amount of the bound carbon dioxide is determined based on the at least one reaction agent parameter and the respective measured value or the respective measured values, or based on the sensor data of claim 14, or based on the data of both claims 13 and 14. Therefore, the scope of claim 14 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites “the further sensor”, which lacks antecedent basis. Furthermore, claim 15 recites “wherein the amount of the bound carbon dioxide is determined as a function of sensor data of the at least one sensor…, wherein the sensor data relate to a pH value and/or a temperature of the ground”. Note that the sensor data recited in claim 15 is different from the conductivity of the ground and respective cationic concentration of at least one cation. Claim 13 recites “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”. Thus, when the amount of the bound carbon dioxide is determined as a function of sensor data of the at least one sensor, wherein the sensor data is different from those recited in claim 13, it contradicts with “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” recited in claim 13. Thus, it is unclear if the amount of the bound carbon dioxide is determined based on the at least one reaction agent parameter and the respective measured value or the respective measured values, or based on the sensor data of claim 15, or based on the data of both claims 13 and 15. Therefore, the scope of claim 15 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites “the time derivative of this amount”, which lacks antecedent basis, and it is also unclear if “this amount” is the same or different than “the amount of the bound carbon dioxide”. Furthermore, “the course of the calculation”, “the correction factors”, and “the sensor data” lack antecedent basis. It is also unclear if “at least one of the correction factors” is the same as or different than the at least one correction factor. Therefore, the scope of claim 16 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites “the sensor data” in line 2, “the respective sensor”, and “the respective sensors”, which lack antecedent basis. It is unclear if the respective sensor and the respective sensors are the same or different than the at least one sensor recited in claim 13. Therefore, the scope of claim 18 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites “the sensor data” which lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, the scope of claim 19 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites “the sensor data” which lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if “a respective sensor” is the same or different than “at least one sensor” recited in claim 13. Therefore, the scope of claim 20 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites “the respective sensor”, “the respective sensors”, and “the sensor data”, which lack antecedent basis. It is unclear if the respective sensor and the respective sensors are the same or different than the at least one sensor recited in claim 13. “which soil sample…, is studied” is unclear if “which soil sample” is the same or different than the soil sample taken from the ground. Therefore, the scope of claim 21 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 recites “the soil sample”, “the further sensor”, “the at least one measured value”, and “the sensor data”, which lack antecedent basis. It is unclear what does “this” in “wherein as a function of this” refer to. Note that claim 13 recites “determining the amount of the bound carbon dioxide as a function of both the reaction agent parameter and the respective measured value or the respective measured values”. It is unclear if “this and the at least one measured value acquired in the measurement area and/or of at least parts of the sensor data acquired in the measurement area” on which the amount of the bound carbon dioxide is determined further limits “both the reaction agent parameter and the respective measured value or the respective measured values” on which the amount of the bound carbon dioxide is determined in claim 13. Therefore, the scope of claim 22 is indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites “wherein the amount of the bound carbon dioxide is determined as a function of sensor data of the sensor and/or at least one further sensor”. Note that the sensor data recited in claim 14 is different from the conductivity of the ground and respective cationic concentration of at least one cation. Claim 13 recites “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”. Thus, when the amount of the bound carbon dioxide is determined as a function of sensor data of at least one further sensor, wherein the sensor data is different from those recited in claim 13, it contradicts with “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” recited in claim 13. Thus, it fails to further limit “determining the amount of the bound carbon dioxide as a function of both the reaction agent parameter and the respective measured value or the respective measured values” recited in claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites “wherein the amount of the bound carbon dioxide is determined as a function of sensor data of the at least one sensor and/or the further sensor and/or at least one further sensor”. Note that the sensor data recited in claim 15 are different from the conductivity of the ground and cationic concentration of at least one cation. Claim 13 recites “determining the amount of the bound carbon dioxide as a function of both the reaction agent parameter and the respective measured value or the respective measured values”. Thus, when the amount of the bound carbon dioxide is determined as a function of sensor data of the further sensor and/or at least one further sensor, wherein the sensor data are different from those recited in claim 13, it contradicts with “determining the amount of the bound carbon dioxide as a function of both the reaction agent parameter and the respective measured value or the respective measured values” recited in claim 13. Thus, it fails to further limit “determining the amount of the bound carbon dioxide as a function of both the reaction agent parameter and the respective measured value or the respective measured values” recited in claim 13.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites “wherein the amount of the bound carbon dioxide is determined as a function of the prior information”. Note that the prior information recited in claim 21 is different from the conductivity of the ground and cationic concentration of at least one cation. Claim 13 recites “determining the amount of the bound carbon dioxide as a function of both the reaction agent parameter and the respective measured value or the respective measured values”. Thus, “wherein the amount of the bound carbon dioxide is determined as a function of the prior information“ contradicts with “determining the amount of the bound carbon dioxide as a function of both the reaction agent parameter and the respective measured value or the respective measured values” recited in claim 13. Thus, it fails to further limit “determining the amount of the bound carbon dioxide as a function of both the reaction agent parameter and the respective measured value or the respective measured values” recited in claim 13.
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 13-24 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 determining an amount of carbon dioxide chemically bound within a time interval with the aid of a reaction agent on the ground, comprising the following steps: reading in at least one reaction agent parameter relating to the reaction agent; acquiring a respective measured value for the conductivity of the ground and/or for respective cationic concentration of at least one cation in the ground by way of at least one sensor attached in or on the ground; and determining the amount of the bound carbon dioxide as a function of both the reaction agent parameter and the measured value or the 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 measured value or the 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 limitations, “reading in at least one reaction agent parameter relating to the reaction agent; acquiring a respective measured value for the conductivity of the ground and/or for 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 measured value or the measured values”,
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 measured value (soil EC) or the 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 determining an amount of carbon dioxide chemically bound within a time interval with the aid of a reaction agent on the ground, 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: “determining the amount of the bound carbon dioxide as a function of both the at least one reaction agent parameter and the measured value or the 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 measured value or the 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 “reading in at least one reaction agent parameter relating to the reaction agent; acquiring a respective measured value for the conductivity of the ground and/or for 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 measured value or the measured values” recited in claim 13, 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 measured value (soil EC) or the 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 14-24 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: “reading in at least one reaction agent parameter relating to the reaction agent; acquiring a respective measured value for the conductivity of the ground and/or for 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 measured value or the 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 measured value (soil EC) or the 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. 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 14-24, claims 14-24 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 14-24 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 as a function of sensor data of the at least one sensor and/or at least one further sensor, wherein the 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 the air above the ground. The amount of the bound carbon dioxide is determined/computed based on the 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 as a function of sensor data of the sensor and/or the further sensor and/or at least one further sensor, wherein the 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 the 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 in the course of the calculation by at least one 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 the concentration of sodium ions and/or of calcium ions and/or of magnesium ions is acquired as the 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 measured value and/or the sensor data 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) wireless 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 soli 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 measured value or the measured values and/or at least parts of the sensor data 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 measured value or at least one of the measured values and/or the sensor data are acquired at multiple measurement positions by a respective sensor, wherein the measurement positions are in particular 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. 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 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 21, claim 21 further recites an abstract idea of determining the amount of the bound carbon dioxide based on 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 sol 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 relating 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 the weather, 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 measured values for the 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 method according to claim 13. At least one sensor for acquiring measured values for the 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 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.
Therefore, dependent claims 14-24 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Tan (CN201540283U) teaches a soil salinity-alkalinity detection instrument. Liu (CN102565151A) teaches a device and system for detecting soil acidity and alkalinity. Berg et al. (US11085909B1) teaches A system includes a processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to collect a machine data set, analyze the machine data set to identify a mineralogical feature, generate a clay characterization by analyzing the mineralogical feature.
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.
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, 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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIZHI QIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1795