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 .
Claims status: claims are the same as presented last.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 regarding claims 1 – 12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in pg.2 of the remarks that Siciliano et al. do not suggest using a UV light source positioned to expose the soil under the soil surface to UV light. The examiner respectfully disagrees because para. [0015] teaches subsurface soil sensors including non-dispersive UV sensors. A Non-dispersive sensors include a source & a detector. In last para. – 1st para. of pg.2-3 of the remarks applicant claims that the system of claim 1 uses a UV light source to cause oxidation of CO2 in the soil. However, claim 1 does not claim that limitation. Claim 1 recites “an ultraviolet light source positioned to expose the soil under the soil surface to ultraviolet light; and a carbon dioxide sensor configured to measure a concentration of carbon dioxide in the interior volume of the subsurface support”. There is no recitation of “oxidation of CO2”. Therefore, that limitation can not be addressed.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a new reference Imahori et al. Additionally, the allowable subject matter for claims 16-17 are rescinded in light of Imahori et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1,3, 8-11, 13, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siciliano et al. (US 2021/0356450 A1; pub. Nov. 18, 2021).
Regarding claim 1, Siciliano et al. disclose: A soil carbon measurement device, comprising: a subsurface support configured to be inserted at least partially under a soil surface (para. [0058]), wherein the subsurface support comprises an interior volume (para. [0055]) and a gas-permeable barrier separating the interior volume from soil under the soil surface (para. [0051]); an ultraviolet light sensor (para. [0015]); and a carbon dioxide sensor configured to measure a concentration of carbon dioxide in the interior volume of the subsurface support (para. [0018]).
Siciliano et al. are silent about: an ultraviolet light source positioned to expose the soil under the soil surface to ultraviolet light. However, para. [0015] teaches a non-dispersive ultraviolet light sensor, therefore, an ultraviolet light source positioned to expose the soil under the soil surface to ultraviolet light is implicitly taught because a non-dispersive gas sensors/detectors are known to include a light source
Regarding claim 3, Siciliano et al. disclose: the subsurface support has a hollow tube shape (fig.7 item 111).
Regarding claim 8, Siciliano et al. disclose: the carbon dioxide sensor is a nondispersive infrared (NDIR) carbon dioxide sensor (para. [0015]).
Regarding claim 9, Siciliano et al. disclose: an above-ground enclosure connected to the subsurface support (fig.12 item 146).
Regarding claim 10, Siciliano et al. disclose: the above-ground enclosure contains a wireless transmitter connected to the carbon dioxide sensor to transmit carbon dioxide concentration measurements (para. [0024], [0060]).
Regarding claim 11, Siciliano et al. disclose: a battery connected to supply power to the carbon dioxide sensor (para. [0060]) motivated by the benefits for a compact probe.
Regarding claim 13, Siciliano et al. disclose: A method of measuring soil carbon, comprising:
inserting a soil carbon measurement device at least partially under a soil surface, 20 wherein the soil carbon measurement device comprises an interior volume and a gas- permeable barrier separating the interior volume from soil under the soil surface; exposing the soil under the soil surface to ultraviolet light; and measuring a concentration of carbon dioxide in the interior volume of the soil carbon measurement device (the claim contains the same substantive limitations as claim 1, therefore, the claim is rejected on the same basis).
Regarding claim 18, Siciliano et al. disclose: the soil carbon measurement device comprises an ultraviolet light source and a carbon dioxide sensor (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 13).
Regarding claim 20, Siciliano et al. disclose: A soil carbon monitoring system, comprising: an array of soil carbon measurement devices distributed over an area of land, the soil carbon measurement devices comprising: a subsurface support inserted at least partially under a soil surface, wherein the subsurface support comprises an interior volume and a gas-permeable barrier separating the interior volume from soil under the soil surface, an ultraviolet light source positioned to expose the soil under the soil surface to ultraviolet light, a carbon dioxide sensor configured to measure a concentration of carbon dioxide in the interior volume of the subsurface support, and a wireless transmitter configured to transmit the measured concentration of carbon dioxide; and a monitoring station comprising a wireless receiver configured to the receive measured concentrations of carbon dioxide from the soil carbon measurement devices (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 13, additionally see para. [0051]-[0052]).
Claims 2, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siciliano et al. (US 2021/0356450 A1; pub. Nov. 18, 2021) in view of Mangeat et al. (US 2021/0356622 A1; pub. Nov. 18, 2021).
Regarding claim 2, Siciliano et al. are silent about: the subsurface support has a length from about 5 cm to about 100 cm.
In a similar field of endeavor Mangeat et al. disclose: the subsurface support has a length from about 5 cm to about 100 cm (para. [0037]) motivated by the benefits for a probe that outputs measurements with high spatial precision (Mangeat et al. para. [0105]).
In light of the benefits for a probe that outputs measurements with high spatial precision as taught by Mangeat et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to used the light source of Mangeat et al. in the device of Siciliano et al.
Regarding claim 6, Siciliano et al. are silent about: the ultraviolet light source is positioned from about 1 cm to about 95 cm below the soil surface when the subsurface support is inserted under the soil surface.
In a similar field of endeavor Mangeat et al. disclose: the subsurface support has a length from about 5 cm to about 100 cm (para. [0037]) and an ultraviolet source (fig.1 item 22) in the probe head (fig.1 item 24) positioned motivated by the benefits for a probe that outputs measurements with high spatial precision (Mangeat et al. para. [0105]).
In light of the benefits for a probe that outputs measurements with high spatial precision as taught by Mangeat et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to used the light source of Mangeat et al. in the device of Siciliano et al.
The combined references are silent about: the ultraviolet light source is positioned from about 1 cm to about 95 cm below the soil surface when the subsurface support is inserted under the soil surface.
However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."
Regarding claim 7, Siciliano et al. are silent about: the ultraviolet light source is a light emitting diode configured to emit a wavelength from 100 nm to 450 nm.
In a similar field of endeavor Mangeat et al. disclose: the ultraviolet light source is a light emitting diode configured to emit a wavelength from 100 nm to 450 nm (Abstract, para. [0056], [0111]) motivated by the benefits for an efficient light source.
In light of the benefits for an efficient light source, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to used the light source of Mangeat et al. in the device of Siciliano et al.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siciliano et al. (US 2021/0356450 A1; pub. Nov. 18, 2021) in view of Meredith et al. (US 2024/0241017 A1; pub. Jul. 18, 2024).
Regarding claim 4, the combined references are silent about: the gas-permeable barrier comprises holes formed in the subsurface support.
In a similar field of endeavor Meredith et al. disclose: the gas-permeable barrier comprises holes formed in the subsurface support (para. [0013], [0050], [0077]) motivated by the benefits for an improved soil gas probe (Meredith et al. para. [0031]).
In light of the benefits for an improved soil gas probe as taught by Meredith et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pores of Meredith et al. in the device of Siciliano et al.
Regarding claim 5, Meredith et al. disclose: the holes have a width from about 10 micrometers to about 5 millimeters (para. [0013], [0050], [0077]) motivated by the benefits for an improved soil gas probe (Meredith et al. para. [0031]).
Claims 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siciliano et al. (US 2021/0356450 A1; pub. Nov. 18, 2021) in view of Combee (US 2010/0001735 A1; pub. Jan. 7, 2010).
Regarding claim 12, Siciliano et al. are silent about: a wireless wake-up module configured to turn on the ultraviolet light source and the carbon dioxide sensor upon receiving a wireless signal.
In a similar field of endeavor Combee discloses: a wireless wake-up module configured to turn soil analysis probe upon receiving a wireless signal (para. [0033]-[0034], claim 20) motivated by the benefits for a probe with reduced operational cost and that can be operated with flexibility.
In light of the benefits for a probe with reduced operational cost and that can be operated with flexibility, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the wireless features of Combee in the device of Siciliano et al.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Siciliano et al. and Combee disclose: maintaining the ultraviolet light source and the carbon dioxide sensor in a turned-off state and sending a wireless signal to the soil carbon measurement device to wake up the soil carbon measurement device and turn on the ultraviolet light source and the carbon dioxide sensor (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 12).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siciliano et al. (US 2021/0356450 A1; pub. Nov. 18, 2021) in view of Imahori et al. (US 2022/0144757 A1; pub. May 12, 2022).
Regarding claim 14, Siciliano et al. are silent about: the concentration of carbon dioxide comprises measuring the concentration during a first time period without exposing the soil to the ultraviolet light and measuring the concentration during a second time period while exposing the soil to the ultraviolet light.
In a similar field of endeavor Imahori et al. disclose: the concentration of carbon dioxide comprises measuring the concentration during a first time period without exposure of the ultraviolet light (fig.2 “uv off”) and measuring the concentration during a second time period during exposure of the ultraviolet light (fig.2 “uv on”) motivated by the benefits for improved CO2 concentration measurement accuracy.
In light of the benefits for improved CO2 concentration measurement accuracy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Imahori et al. to modify the method of Siciliano et al.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Siciliano et al. and Imahori et al. disclose: measuring the concentration during a third time period after the second period, wherein the soil is not exposed to the ultraviolet light during the third time period (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 14).
Regarding claim 16, Imahori et al. disclose: comparing the measured concentration during the first time period with the measured concentration during the second time period (fig.2 sows the “uv off” period & “uv on” period) motivated by the benefits for improved CO2 concentration measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 17, Imahori et al. disclose: the first time period is from about 20 minutes to about 2 hours and wherein the second time period is from about 10 minutes to about 1 hour (fig.2) motivated by the benefits for improved CO2 concentration measurement accuracy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
