DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (REMARKS, p.4-5):
PNG
media_image1.png
461
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to MPEP 2106, Examiner must follow the procedures specified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) to determine whether a patent claim or patent application claim is directed to a judicial exception (laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas). That is, the claim must be analyzed limitation by limitation, and/or element by element, following the MPEP/2019 PEG guideline to evaluate the eligibility. In the instant case, focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, Examiner evaluates in Step 2A - Prong 1 whether any limitation(s) of claim recites a judicial exception. As discussed in details in sections 5-6 below in this Office Action, Examiner identifies that each or the combination of the steps of S2 and S4-S6 recited in the representative claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception falling within a combination of the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Process” Groupings of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG, while the steps of S1 and S3 include additional elements that are subjected to further analysis at Steps 2A - Prong 2 or Step 2B.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the “sensors” are moot in view of the new ground of rejection under 35 USC 112 set forth in sections 3-4 below.
Further, Examiner asserts that the step of “S1: acquiring ….” reads on merely a process of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea identified above in Step 2A - Prong 1, which represents a pre-solution activity to the judicial exception. Even if the limitations of the “one or more sensors” are treated as a part of the claim, Examiner takes the position that the step of “acquiring data from one or more sensors” “wherein the one or more sensors are located in the mixed forest ecosystem” is still recited at a high level of generality. The claim does not provide any details about, for example, the type of the sensors and/or in any particular manner that the sensors are uniquely deployed in the mixed forest ecosystem to acquire said data/information such that these additional limitations effect a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or reflect a qualified improvement and/or any inventive concept that is patentable. Applicant’s argument in this regard is therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues (REMARKS, p.5):
PNG
media_image2.png
364
733
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Applicant is advised that the 2019 PEG affirms that the USPTO is no longer taking the case-comparison approach to determine whether a claim recites a judicial exception and instead uses enumerated Groupings of abstract ideas. Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A - Prong 1 evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Step 2A - Prong 2 asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and, if necessary, Step 2B further analyzes whether or not the claim provides an Inventive Concept.
In the instant case, focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, Examiner asserts that the pending claims 1-10 are directed to an abstract idea of optimizing a model for simulating carbon storage in a mixed forest ecosystem but without reciting any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception (see detailed analysis as set forth in section 6 below in this office action). As mentioned above, Examiner asserts that each or the combination of the steps of S2 and S4-S6 recited in the representative claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea falling within a combination of the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Process” Groupings defined by the 2019 PEG, while the limitations of S1 and S3 are additional elements to the judicial exception. The identified abstract idea encompasses essentially mental process of manipulating information through mathematical concepts and/or correlations. According to MPEP 2106. 04(a)(2), organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical concepts and/or correlations is itself abstract.
In particular, Examiner holds the position that Biome-BGC modelling is widely used to estimate carbon storage and sequestration in forest ecosystems. Applying the model to calculate current carbon storage, with studies often comparing results to field data for validation, is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. The prior art references listed in section 7 below in this Office Action offer evidences leaning toward the application of the Biome-BGC model in various forest types under different conditions. In the instant case, focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, it is considered that the “heart” of pending claim 1 is directed to a method of modifying parameterization in an existing Biome-BGC model for design or other applications. This kind of modification involves merely mental process and/or mathematical concepts of changing the parameters that define the model's geometry or behavior, allowing for adjustments and variations without rebuilding from scratch. Furthermore, the claim does not recite any additional element that amounts to “significantly more” or an “inventive concept” under the 2019 PEG (see also MPEP 2106.05). The step of “S1: acquiring ….” encompasses merely a process of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea, which represents a pre-solution activity to the judicial exception. Also, under the BRI, the step of “S3: simulating, by taking the mixed forest as a research object, the carbon storage based on the improved Biome-BGC model” is not qualified for meaningful limitations to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception (math + mental) to a particular technological environment or field of use. Moreover, the claimed physical data used for practicing the abstract idea are all recited at high level of generality. At most, they read on data characterization which could be considered a field of use limitation but do not reflect a qualified improvement or any inventive concept that is patentable (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), 2106.05(a), 2106.05(f), 2106.05(h)).
Secondly, the claim of Diamond v. Diehr, recites such additional elements as specifically claimed constant measurement of temperature at a mold cavity of a rubber-molding press and the repetitive computer recalculation of the appropriate cure time using the constantly updated measurements which provide ‘‘something more’’ than mere computer implementation of calculation of the Arrhenius equation. Further, the claimed steps act in concert to transform raw, uncured rubber to cured molded rubber. As affirmed by the Court, the combination of steps recited in addition to the mathematical formula show that the claim is not to the formula in isolation, but rather that the steps impose meaningful limits that apply the formula to improve an existing technological process. Thus, the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Since none of the additional elements recited in the claims of the present application is proven to be ‘‘significantly more’’ to make the claim go beyond just performing a calculation and provides a practical application or significant improvement through the use of that calculation, Applicant’s arguments based on Diamond v. Diehr is unpersuasive.
Similarly, Applicant’s arguments in view of Bilski v. Kappos is unpersuasive. In general, doing math is a judicial exception – an abstract idea. There a numerous case law that indicate using an algorithm or a mathematical equation is an abstract idea. Performing the abstract idea using a processor/computer does not add significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In Bilski v. Kappos, the Supreme Court clarified that the "machine-or-transformation" test is not the sole test for determining patent eligibility of a process under 35 USC 101. The Court affirmed the Federal Circuit's rejection of a patent application for a business method of hedging risk in the energy market, finding the application to manipulate an abstract idea rather than a patentable process.
Applicant further argues (REMARKS, p.9-10):
PNG
media_image3.png
399
711
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Contour, the Federal Circuit held that the asserted claims are directed to a specific means that improves the relevant technology. The Federal Circuit particularly focused on the "generate" limitation (“generate . . . a first . . . and a second image data stream”) and its construction given by the district court. The Federal Circuit asserted that "generate" limitation should be interpreted as “record[ing] in parallel from the video image data.” Parallel recording is distinct from sequential generation, where the low-resolution stream is “down-converted” from the originally recorded high-resolution stream. Parallel data stream recording with lower-quality recording wirelessly transferred to a remote device (emphasis added) constituted a “specific, technological means” for achieving the invention’s results. Taken as such, the representative claim did not recite an abstract idea implemented on devices performing their expected functions but an eligible improvement to the relevant technology (emphasis added). In the instant case, however, the pending claims 1-10 simply recite an abstract idea implemented based on mathematical concepts and/or correlations, the asserted abstract idea is merely being directed to "a result or effect that itself is an abstract idea”. None of the additional elements alone or in combination with the judicial exception would produce that kind of eligible improvement to the relevant technology as identified for Contour. Therefore, Contour does not apply to the present application.
Applicant further argues (REMARKS, p.10-12):
PNG
media_image4.png
249
699
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is advised that, following the MPEP/2019 PEG guideline to evaluate the eligibility, the "focus of the claimed advance over the prior art" should be examined to look to whether the claims are directed to "a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology" rather than merely being directed to "a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea". Simply setting forth advantages or benefits of use without providing any rational/evidence to how/why the claimed elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception could be treated as mere instructions to apply the judicial exception but not be qualified for an improvement in the functioning of such as a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), 2106.05(a), and 2106.05 (f)).
In the instant case, focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, Examiner asserts that the pending claims 1-10 are directed to an abstract idea of optimizing a model for simulating carbon storage in a mixed forest ecosystem without reciting any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception. At most, the pending claims 1-10 recite an “improved” abstract idea but noting in the claims reflects a qualified improvement which shows that the “improved” abstract idea goes beyond just performing math calculations and provides a practical application or significant improvement through the use of that calculations, while an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
Applicant is particularly advised that a claim is “an improvement over the prior art” and “directed to a technical improvement” may be in line with the first example provided in the 2019 PEG for Step 2A Prong 2: “an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.” Nevertheless, in pending claims of the present application, Examiner could not identify any additional element that reflects an eligible improvement. In general, the claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), 2106.05(a), and 2106.05 (f)):
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The rest of the Appellant’s arguments are reliant upon the issues discussed above, and are deemed unpersuasive as well for the reasons provided above. The rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 USC 101 is therefore maintained. Detailed response is given in sections 5-6 as set forth below in this Office Action.
Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
4. Claims 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically, the recited limitation “S1: acquiring, from one or more sensors, basic … data, wherein the one or more sensors are located in the mixed forest ecosystem” is not described or supported by the specification of the instant application. Neither the drawings nor the specification discusses or shows that said “acquiring” is from one or more sensors wherein the one or more sensors are located in the mixed forest ecosystem. Applicant states (REMARKS filed 06/03/2025, page 1) that: “Support for the amendment can be found in paragraph [0060] and figure 2 of the specification”. But the Examiner could not identify such a support or any related discussion for the limitation in question from Applicant’s originally filed disclosure. The specification makes mention of “measured data” or “measured value” in several paragraphs. However, the Examiner will not speculate as to whether said “measured data” or “measured value” is actually acquired from one or more sensors wherein the one or more sensors are located in the mixed forest ecosystem. The Examiner considers that measuring in general means finding out the size, amount, or degree of something by using a tool or standard in which the properties of an object are determined by comparing them to a standard quantity. For example, someone can measure a distance with their foot without using any tools or sensors.
As such, the newly added features regarding “one or more sensors” are considered as new matter introduced into the disclosure of the instant application. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Because the amended claims of 06/03/2025 are not supported by the original disclosure and the Applicant is required to cancel the new matter introduced in the amendment, the previously presented claims 1-10 are examined again in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
6. Claims 1-10 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.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-10 are directed to an abstract idea of optimizing the Biome-IBGC model for simulating carbon storage in a mixed forest ecosystem.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
A method for calculating a carbon storage in a mixed forest ecosystem, comprising the following steps:
S1: acquiring basic geographic data, meteorological data, an eco-physiological parameter, thinning management history data, and validation data;
S2: proposing an improved biome-biogeochemical cycles (Biome-IBGC) model suitable for simulating the carbon storage of the mixed forest ecosystem under a management by improving a phenology module, adding a thinning operation management module, and optimizing the eco-physiological parameter, based on an existing Biome-BGC model, specifically comprising:
S201: developing a phenology model suitable for simulating a mixed forest by improving the phenology module based on an evergreen phenology model, specifically comprising:
S2011: calculating start and end times of a transfer period of deciduous vegetation by defining a first parameter, wherein the first parameter is a proportion of a transfer growth period to a growing season of the deciduous vegetation;
S2012: calculating a daily transfer amount of the mixed forest in different phenological periods by defining a second parameter, wherein the second parameter is a ratio of evergreen vegetation to the deciduous vegetation; and
S2013: describing start and end times of a litterfall process of the deciduous vegetation by defining a third parameter, wherein the third parameter is a proportion of the litterfall process to the growing season of the deciduous vegetation; and calculating a daily litterfall amount of the mixed forest in different phenological periods based on the ratio of the evergreen vegetation to the deciduous vegetation;
S202: adding the thinning operation management module to simulate an impact of thinning on the carbon storage of the mixed forest ecosystem; and
S203: optimizing and analyzing the eco-physiological parameter through a flower pollination algorithm (FPA), and establishing a set of parameters suitable for simulating the carbon storage of the mixed forest ecosystem;
S3: simulating, by taking the mixed forest as a research object, the carbon storage based on the improved Biome-BGC model;
S4: validating the improved Biome-BGC model;
S5: analyzing a sensitivity of the eco-physiological parameter by an extended Fourier amplitude sensitivity test (EFAST) method; and
S6: selecting a highly sensitive parameter, and analyzing positive and negative effects of the highly sensitive parameter on the carbon storage by a path analysis method.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
Method
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the step of S2, including the sub-steps of S201/S202/S203, encompasses mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although it does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely indicates that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps.
Under the BRI, the steps of S4 and S5 encompass mental processes, namely data analysis and evaluation in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers.
Under the BRI, the step of S6 encompass mental processes, namely data analysis and evaluation in the human mind or with pen and paper.
These steps recited in the bolded portion therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea. Nothing in the claimed limitations precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper.
As such, the bolded portion of instant claim 1 falls within a combination of the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Process” Groupings of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The step of S1 reads on merely a process of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea identified above in 2A - Prong 1. According to MPEP 2106.05(g)(3): … that were described as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. As such, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Furthermore, the step of S1 as recited does not require any particular devices or sensors to perform the “acquiring”. Thus claim 1 would monopolize the abstract idea across a wide range of applications.
Under the BRI, the step of S3: simulating, by taking the mixed forest as a research object, the carbon storage based on the improved Biome-BGC model is not qualified for meaningful limitations because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception (math + mental) to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In general, the claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the algorithm across a wide range of applications.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
See analysis given in 2A - Prong 2 above.
Examiner’s note:
The Biome-BGC model is widely used to estimate carbon storage and sequestration in forest ecosystems. Applying the model to calculate current carbon storage, with studies often comparing results to field data for validation, is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. The prior art references listed in section 5 below in this Office Action offer evidences leaning toward the application of the Biome-BGC model in various forest types under different conditions.
In the instant case, focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, it is considered that the “heart” of pending claim 1 is directed to a method of modifying parameterization in an existing Biome-BGC model for design or other applications. This kind of modification involves merely mental process and/or mathematical concepts of changing the parameters that define the model's geometry or behavior, allowing for adjustments and variations without rebuilding from scratch. The claim does not recite any additional element that amounts to “significantly more” or an “inventive concept” under the 2019 PEG (see also MPEP 2106.05).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 2-10 inherit attributes of the independent claim 1, but do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. These claims merely extend (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because they merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
In particular, claim 2 recites various limitations of the acquired data. Under the BRI, these limitations encompass merely data characterization which can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of simulating carbon storage in a mixed forest ecosystem.
claims 3-6 and 9-10 recite explicitly limitations related to mathematical equations or calculations. The court has concluded that a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information and a process that calls on a computing device with basic functionality for comparing stored and input data and rules all are familiar mental steps that can be performed in mind or manually (e.g., with paper and pencil) by a human, or with a general-purpose computer being used to automate well-known manual processes, thus are not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites limitations that extend the combination of the mental processes and the mathematical concepts of step S2, but do not include any additional element that amounts for "significantly more" because they merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Claim 8 recites limitations that provide more details about linking the judicial exception (math + mental) to a particular technological environment or field of use, but do not include additional elements that amount for "significantly more".
Hence the claims 1-10 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner’s Note
7. While there are related references that discuss developing/modifying/applying the Biome-BGC model for estimating carbon storage and sequestration in forest ecosystems, the prior art of record does not specifically provide teachings for the claimed limitations including: developing a phenology model suitable for simulating a mixed forest by improving the phenology module based on an evergreen phenology model, specifically comprising: calculating start and end times of a transfer period of deciduous vegetation by defining a first parameter, wherein the first parameter is a proportion of a transfer growth period to a growing season of the deciduous vegetation; calculating a daily transfer amount of the mixed forest in different phenological periods by defining a second parameter, wherein the second parameter is a ratio of evergreen vegetation to the deciduous vegetation; and describing start and end times of a litterfall process of the deciduous vegetation by defining a third parameter, wherein the third parameter is a proportion of the litterfall process to the growing season of the deciduous vegetation; and calculating a daily litterfall amount of the mixed forest in different phenological periods based on the ratio of the evergreen vegetation to the deciduous vegetation; adding the thinning operation management module to simulate an impact of thinning on the carbon storage of the mixed forest ecosystem; and optimizing and analyzing the eco-physiological parameter through a flower pollination algorithm (FPA), and establishing a set of parameters suitable for simulating the carbon storage of the mixed forest ecosystem. It is these limitations, as they are claimed in the combination recited in independent claim 1, that would make the pending claims 1-10 of the present application distinguish over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Du et al., Estimating and Analyzing the Spatiotemporal Pattern of Aboveground Carbon in Bamboo Forest by Combining Remote Sensing Data and Improved BIOME-BGC Model, IEEE JOURNAL OF SELECTED TOPICS IN APPLIED EARTH OBSERVATIONS AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 11, NO. 7, JULY 2018.
Chen et al., Estimation of Forest NPP and Carbon Sequestration in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, Using the Biome-BGC Model, Forests 2019, 10, 149; doi:10.3390/f10020149.
Wang et al., A hierarchical analysis of terrestrial ecosystem model Biome-BGC: Equilibrium analysis and model calibration, Ecological Modelling Volume 220, Issue 17, 10 September 2009, Pages 2009-2023.
Tyburski (US 20110055220 A1) -- GREENHOUSE GAS GRID AND TRACKING SYSTEM.
Contact Information
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights