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 .
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,031,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are anticipated by the patented claims.
Regarding claim 1, Patent No. 12,031,906 claims a method for mapping distribution of chemical compounds in soil (claim 2, col. 13, lines 1-2), the method comprising the steps of:
inserting a probe into the soil at at least one location (line 3);
obtaining spectroscopic data regarding the soil (line 4);
sampling a core of soil adjacent to the at least one probe location (line 5);
dividing the core into multiple depth increments (line 6);
analyzing the core (line 7);
matching each core with a corresponding depth increment of the probe insertion (lines 8-9);
obtaining probe insertion data from the probe insertion (line 10);
dividing the probe insertion data into training, validation, and test categories (lines 11-12);
normalizing the probe insertion data on a spectrum by spectrum basis, utilizing a machine learning normalization algorithm (lines 16-18); and
choosing a model utilizing a test set (line 21).
Regarding claim 2, Patent No. 12,031,906 claims further comprising the steps of: resampling spectral variables from the probe insertion data to a wavelength interval longer than a native wavelength interval of an associated spectrometer (claim 1, lines 13-15); and standardizing the spectral variables to a common scale by removing a mean and scaling to unit variance (claim 1, lines 19-20).
Regarding claim 3, Patent No. 12,031,906 claims further comprising utilizing a global navigation satellite system to record the location of the probe (claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, Patent No. 12,031,906 claims further comprising measuring a depth the probe was inserted into the soil (claim 4).
Regarding claim 5, Patent No. 12,031,906 claims further comprising measuring a pressure at which the probe was inserted into the soil (claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, Patent No. 12,031,906 claims further comprising determining at least one of the group consisting of elevation, slope, surface curvature, relative topographic position, and topographic wetness index of the soil (claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, Patent No. 12,031,906 claims further comprising determining at least one of the group consisting of soil type, soil texture, and parent material type (claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, Patent No. 12,031,906 claims further comprising reducing the number of spectral variables using a Recursive Feature Elimination algorithm with cross-validation and support vector regression (claim 8).
Regarding claim 9, Patent No. 12,031,906 claims further comprising generating all possible combinations of spectral normalization, regressors, and regressor parameters (claim 9).
Regarding claim 10, Patent No. 12,031,906 claims further comprising: evaluating each of the combinations using five-fold cross validation; and choosing the combination yielding a lowest root mean square error of cross-validation, wherein the machine learning normalization algorithm is either a standard normal variate or a Savitzky-Golay algorithm (claim 10).
Regarding claim 11, Patent No. 12,031,906 claims a non-transitory computer readable storage device storing computer executable instructions that when executed by a computer controls the computer to perform a method comprising (claim 11, col. 13, lines 54-57):
inserting a probe into soil at at least one location (col. 14, line 1);
obtaining spectroscopic data regarding the soil (line 2);
sampling a core of soil adjacent to the probe location (line 3);
dividing the core into multiple depth increments (line 4);
analyzing the core (line 5);
matching each core with a corresponding depth increment of the probe insertion (lines 6-7);
obtaining probe insertion data from the probe insertion (line 8);
dividing the probe insertion data into training, validation, and test categories (lines 9-10);
normalizing the probe insertion data on a spectrum by spectrum basis, utilizing a machine learning normalization algorithm (lines 14-16); and
choosing a model utilizing a test set (line 19).
Regarding claim 12, Patent No. 12,031,906 claims further comprising the steps of: resampling spectral variables from the probe insertion data to a wavelength interval longer than a native wavelength interval of an associated spectrometer (claim 11, col. 14, lines 11-13); and standardizing the spectral variables to a common scale by removing a mean and scaling to unit variance (claim 11, col. 14, lines 17-18).
Regarding claim 13, Patent No. 12,031,906 claims further comprising utilizing a global navigation satellite system to record the location of the probe (claim 12).
Regarding claim 14, Patent No. 12,031,906 claims further comprising measuring a depth the probe was inserted into the soil (claim 13).
Regarding claim 15, Patent No. 12,031,906 claims further comprising measuring a pressure at which the probe was inserted into the soil (claim 14).
Regarding claim 16, Patent No. 12,031,906 claims further comprising determining at least one of the group consisting of elevation, slope, surface curvature, relative topographic position, and topographic wetness index of the soil (claim 15).
Regarding claim 17, Patent No. 12,031,906 claims further comprising determining at least one of the group consisting of soil type, soil texture, and parent material type (claim 16).
Regarding claim 18, Patent No. 12,031,906 claims further comprising reducing the number of spectral variables using a Recursive Feature Elimination algorithm with cross-validation and support vector regression (claim 17).
Regarding claim 19, Patent No. 12,031,906 claims further comprising generating all possible combinations of spectral normalization, regressors, and regressor parameters (claim 18).
Regarding claim 20, Patent No. 12,031,906 claims further comprising: evaluating each of the combinations using five-fold cross validation; and choosing the combination yielding a lowest root mean square error of cross-validation, wherein the machine learning normalization algorithm is either a standard normal variate or a Savitzky-Golay algorithm (claim 19).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1),(a)(2) as being anticipated by Viscarra Rossel et al. (US 2018/0188225 A1), hereinafter “Viscarra Rossel”.
Regarding claim 1, Viscarra Rossel discloses a method for mapping distribution of chemical compounds in soil (abstract, Figs. 2, 12, 17, 25), the method comprising the steps of:
inserting a probe into the soil at at least one location (paragraphs [0095], [0167]);
obtaining spectroscopic data regarding the soil (paragraph [0013]);
sampling a core of soil adjacent to the at least one probe location (paragraphs [0095], [0100]);
dividing the core into multiple depth increments (paragraphs [0168]-[0169]);
analyzing the core (paragraphs [0095], [0171]);
matching each core with a corresponding depth increment of the probe insertion (Fig 15, paragraph [0122]; also paragraphs [0152], [0157]-[0160]; Fig. 20-23, paragraphs [0168]-[0169], [0175]);
obtaining probe insertion data from the probe insertion (paragraph [0095]);
dividing the probe insertion data into training, validation, and test categories (paragraph [0133]);
normalizing the probe insertion data on a spectrum by spectrum basis (paragraph [0133]), utilizing a machine learning normalization algorithm (paragraph [0017], [0027]); and
choosing a model utilizing a test set (paragraph [0142]).
Regarding claim 1, Viscarra Rossel discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage device storing computer executable instructions that when executed by a computer controls the computer to perform a method (abstract, Figs. 2, 12, 17, 25), comprising:
inserting a probe into soil at at least one location (paragraphs [0095], [0167]);
obtaining spectroscopic data regarding the soil (paragraph [0013]);
sampling a core of soil adjacent to the probe location (paragraphs [0095], [0100]);
dividing the core into multiple depth increments (paragraphs [0168]-[0169]);
analyzing the core (paragraphs [0095], [0171]);
matching each core with a corresponding depth increment of the probe insertion (Fig 15, paragraph [0122]; also paragraphs [0152], [0157]-[0160]; Fig. 20-23, paragraphs [0168]-[0169], [0175]);
obtaining probe insertion data from the probe insertion (paragraph [0095]);
dividing the probe insertion data into training, validation, and test categories (paragraph [0133]);
normalizing the probe insertion data on a spectrum by spectrum basis (paragraph [0133]), utilizing a machine learning normalization algorithm (paragraph [0017], [0027]); and
choosing a model utilizing a test set (paragraph [0142]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the double patenting rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method for mapping distribution of chemical compounds in soil, the method comprising, among other essential elements, resampling spectral variables from the probe insertion data to a wavelength interval longer than a native wavelength interval of an associated spectrometer; and standardizing the spectral variables to a common scale by removing a mean and scaling to unit variance, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim. Claims 3-10 are dependent from claim 2 and therefore are also included in the allowed subject matter.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a non-transitory computer readable storage device storing computer executable instructions that when executed by a computer controls the computer to perform a method, the method comprising, among other essential elements, the steps of: resampling spectral variables from the probe insertion data to a wavelength interval longer than a native wavelength interval of an associated spectrometer; and standardizing the spectral variables to a common scale by removing a mean and scaling to unit variance, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim. Claims 13-20 are dependent from claim 12 and therefore are also included in the allowed subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ben-Dor (US 2014/0012504) teaches soil analysis including dividing data into training, validation, and test categories, and would render claims 1 and 11 obvious.
McEntire (US 11704581) teaches crop analysis, including dividing data into training, validation, and test categories, and would render claims 1 and 11 obvious.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571) 272-3995. 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.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877