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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed August 31, 2026 has been entered. Limitations of amended claim 7 are not being interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Zimmerman (US20090287520A1) teaches to provide assessments on carbon dioxide removal ([0042], [0091], [0202]-[0203]) including uncertainty modeling to quantify measurement variations for creating traceable, verifiable carbon credits ([0036], [0066]-[0069], [0558]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-2, 9-12, 14-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US20240125759A1) in view of Knapp (2023. Quantifying CO2 removal at enhanced weathering sites: a multiproxy approach. Environmental science & technology, 57(26), pp.9854-9864.), and further in view of Zimmerman (US20090287520A1).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson (US20240125759A1) teaches a system for monitoring, reporting, and verification ([0028]) comprising: a spectroscopy device (laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS)) comprising an optical source and a detector, wherein the optical source is configured to emit one or more optical signals directed to a target collected from a target area, and the detector is configured to determine spectral measurements of the optical signals collected from the target ([0026], [0064], [0067] A LIBS sensor inherently includes an optical that emits high power optical signals onto a soil. It also includes a spectrometer that collects the light emitted and determines spectral measurement as disclosed by Davis (US 20120084016 A1: (Abstract)) ); and a data analysis subsystem (computer) coupled to the spectroscopy device ([0035], [0037])and configured to: convert the spectral measurements to data indicating compositional characteristics of the target ([0026], [0072]); analyze the data indicating compositional characteristics of the target using a plurality of analytical tools (data fusion, neural networks, machine learning) ([0038], [0062], [0085]); and provide assessments on carbon dioxide removal ([0018]-[0020]), but fails to disclose monitoring, reporting, and verification of enhanced rock weathering, provide assessments on carbon dioxide removal including uncertainty modeling to quantify measurement variations for creating traceable, verifiable carbon.
However, Knapp (Quantifying CO2 Removal at Enhanced Weathering Sites: a Multiproxy Approach) from the same field of endeavor, teaches monitoring, reporting, and verification of enhanced rock weathering (page 9861, left col.: Quantifying the rate of carbon removal from an enhanced weathering and mineralization site’ Abstract: We propose a novel method for quantifying carbon removal rates at enhanced weathering sites).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson by incorporating monitoring, reporting, and verification of enhanced rock weathering in order to specifically monitoring, reporting, and verification for enhanced weathering.
Anderson, when modified by Knapp, fails to teach provide assessments on carbon dioxide removal including uncertainty modeling to quantify measurement variations for creating traceable, verifiable carbon credits
However, Zimmerman, from the same field of endeavor, teaches provide assessments on carbon dioxide removal ([0042], [0091], [0202]-[0203]) including uncertainty modeling to quantify measurement variations for creating traceable, verifiable carbon credits ([0036], [0066]-[0069], [0558]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson and Knapp by incorporating for generating, quantifying and confirming standardized carbon emission reduction credits and reserve carbon emission reduction credits (Zimmerman: [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, Anderson, when modified by Knapp and Zimmerman, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein, to convert the spectral measurements to the data indicating compositional characteristics of the target, the data analysis subsystem is further configured to determine a weathering status (Anderson: [0045]).
Regarding claim 9, Anderson, when modified by Knapp and Zimmerman, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein, to provide the assessments on carbon dioxide removal, the data analysis subsystem is further configured to create a prediction model to provide data support for subsequent implementation of enhanced rock weathering (Anderson:[0080]-[0081], The new data and modeling frame work aims to provide an accurate assessment of the rate of modern carbon removal from this enhanced weathering site, which will provide reference for the challenges associated with quantifying carbon removal rates from other enhanced weathering sites).
Regarding claim 10, Anderson, when modified by Knapp and Zimmerman, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein, to provide the assessments on carbon dioxide removal, the data analysis subsystem is further configured to determine one or more of an enhanced weathering potential and a total carbon dioxide removal (CDR) potential (Knapp: page 9855, right col.: carbon removal rates from other enhanced weathering sites, Knapp: page 9862, left col.: the potential transport capacity of carbon ).
Regarding claim 11, Anderson, when modified by Knapp and Zimmerman, teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the spectroscopy device is a handheld LIBS device.
However, Anderson teaches wherein the spectroscopy device is a portable LIBS device ([0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson by incorporating wherein the spectroscopy device is a handheld LIBS device in order to provide predictable result of convenient measurement.
Regarding claim 12, Anderson, when modified by Knapp and Zimmerman, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the spectroscopy device is a LIBS device that is mounted on a motor vehicle and operates in real time as the motor vehicle traverses the target area, and wherein the data analysis subsystem is integrated onboard the motor vehicle for real-time data acquisition and analysis (Anderson: [0030], [0034], [0039]).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 incorporates all the limitations of claim 1 with minor variations in the claimed language, in method form, rather than apparatus form. The reasons for the rejection of claim 1 apply to claim 14. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 incorporates all the limitations of claim 2 with minor variations in the claimed language, in method form, rather than apparatus form. The reasons for the rejection of claim 2 apply to claim 15. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 incorporates all the limitations of claim 10 with minor variations in the claimed language, in method form, rather than apparatus form. The reasons for the rejection of claim 10 apply to claim 19. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 incorporates all the limitations of claim 12 with minor variations in the claimed language, in method form, rather than apparatus form. The reasons for the rejection of claim 12 apply to claim 20. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US20240125759A1) in view of Knapp (2023. Quantifying CO2 removal at enhanced weathering sites: a multiproxy approach. Environmental science & technology, 57(26), pp.9854-9864.), further in view of Zimmerman (US20090287520A1), and further in view of Wolf (US 20220404329 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Anderson, when modified by Knapp and Zimmerman, teaches the system of claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein, to determine the weathering status, the data analysis subsystem is further configured to determine loss of rock dust by assessing composition of cations in rock dust applied to the target area through the enhanced rock weathering.
However, Wolf, from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein, to determine the weathering status , the data analysis subsystem is further configured to determine loss of rock dust by assessing composition of cations in rock dust applied to the target area through the enhanced rock weathering ([0025], [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson, Knapp and Zimmerman by incorporating wherein, to determine the weathering status, the data analysis subsystem is further configured to determine loss of rock dust by assessing composition of cations in rock dust applied to the target area through the enhanced rock weathering to provide a direct measure of the amount of weathering (Wolf: [0025]).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 incorporates all the limitations of claim 3 with minor variations in the claimed language, in method form, rather than apparatus form. The reasons for the rejection of claim 3 apply to claim 16. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US20240125759A1) in view of Knapp (2023. Quantifying CO2 removal at enhanced weathering sites: a multiproxy approach. Environmental science & technology, 57(26), pp.9854-9864.), further in view of Zimmerman (US20090287520A1), and further in view of Yeomans (US 20150247787 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Anderson, when modified by Knapp and Zimmerman, teaches the system of claim 2, but fails to disclose , wherein the soil organic carbon is measured based on determining loss of material on ignition.
However, determining loss of material on ignition to measure carbon is well known in the art as disclosed by Yeomans (US 20150247787 A1: [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson, Knapp and Zimmerman by incorporating wherein the soil organic carbon is measured based on determining loss of material on ignition for a simple and cost effective determination of carbon content.
Claims 6-7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US20240125759A1) in view of Knapp (2023. Quantifying CO2 removal at enhanced weathering sites: a multiproxy approach. Environmental science & technology, 57(26), pp.9854-9864.), further in view of Zimmerman (US20090287520A1), and further in view of Farmer (US 20210267214 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Anderson, when modified by Knapp and Zimmerman, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the target is a pooled sample that includes soil samples collected from multiple locations within the target area ([0032]) but fails to disclose combined from multiple locations within the target area.
However, Farmer teaches wherein the target is a pooled sample that includes soil samples collected and combined from multiple locations within the target area ([0269], [0283]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson, Knapp and Zimmerman by incorporating combined from multiple locations within the target area in order to provide a more representative of the target for soil-property analysis.
Regarding claim 7, Anderson, when modified by Knapp, Zimmerman and Farmer, teaches the system of claim 6, further comprising a sampling handing unit (ATV) configured to identify geolocated zones (using the GPS) within the target area from which the pooled sample is collected using one or more motorized stages or robots (Anderson: [0030]-[0032]), wherein the pooled sample is collected from the target area using grid-based or rastered laser induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) sampling (Anderson: [0030]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 incorporates all the limitations of claim 7 with minor variations in the claimed language, in method form, rather than apparatus form. The reasons for the rejection of claim 7 apply to claim 17. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US20240125759A1) in view of Knapp (2023. Quantifying CO2 removal at enhanced weathering sites: a multiproxy approach. Environmental science & technology, 57(26), pp.9854-9864.), further in view of Zimmerman (US20090287520A1), and further in view of Sobron (US20190079019A1).
Regarding claim 8, Anderson, when modified by Knapp and Zimmerman, teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein, to analyze the data indicating compositional characteristics, the data analysis subsystem is further configured to perform one or more of multivariate distribution modeling for cation covariance analysis, empirical modeling for weathering prediction and carbon credit creation, calibration with high-precision inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometers (ICP-MS) data, construction of calibration curves for soil-rock dust mixtures with high-precision ICP-MS, and collaborative spot-checking and uncertainty modeling with ICP-MS and LIB
However, Sobron, from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein, to analyze the data indicating compositional characteristics, the data analysis subsystem is further configured to perform one or more of multivariate distribution modeling (KPLSR) for cation covariance analysis ([0021], [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson, Knapp and Zimmerman by incorporating wherein, to analyze the data indicating compositional characteristics, the data analysis subsystem is further configured to perform one or more of multivariate distribution modeling for cation covariance analysis, empirical modeling for weathering prediction and carbon credit creation, calibration with high-precision inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometers (ICP-MS) data, construction of calibration curves for soil-rock dust mixtures with high-precision ICP-MS, and collaborative spot-checking and uncertainty modeling with ICP-MS and LIB for high accurate result (Sobron: [0024])
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 incorporates all the limitations of claims 8 with minor variations in the claimed language, in method form, rather than apparatus form. The reasons for the rejection of claim 8 apply to claim 18. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US20240125759A1) in view of Knapp (2023. Quantifying CO2 removal at enhanced weathering sites: a multiproxy approach. Environmental science & technology, 57(26), pp.9854-9864.), further in view of Zimmerman (US20090287520A1), and further in view of Fiechter (US 20180156697 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Anderson, when modified by Knapp and Zimmerman, teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the spectroscopy device is a LIBS device that is combined with a soil auger to obtain a depth-integrated soil profile of a predetermined target characteristic from the target.
However, Fiechter, from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the spectroscopy device is a LIBS device that is combined with a soil auger to obtain a depth-integrated soil profile of a predetermined target characteristic from the target ([0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson, Knapp and Zimmerman by incorporating wherein the spectroscopy device is a LIBS device that is combined with a soil auger to obtain a depth-integrated soil profile of a predetermined target characteristic from the target in order to recover a desired amount of soil at a predetermined desired depth for sampling (Fiechter: [0056])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 4, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or disclose “wherein the heavy metal concentration is calculated in response to receiving bio-availability of metals and dissolved aqueous metals”
Sobron (US 20190079019 A1) teaches the LIBS technique offers promise as a method suitable for use with a soil penetrating probe to detect heavy metal contamination in soil ([0003]). However, none of the references alone or in combination teaches “wherein the heavy metal concentration is calculated in response to receiving bio-availability of metals and dissolved aqueous metals” in relation to enhanced rock weathering.
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 MOHAMED DOUMBIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8266. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM ET.
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, Michelle Iacoletti 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.
/MOHAMED DOUMBIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights