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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/08/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in this application and a copy has been placed of record in the file. Specification The substitute specification filed on 11/02/2022 is acknowledged. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Clai ms 5, 8 , 12, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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. In regard to claims 5 and 12, the limitation “wherein the sample includes a plant root” is ambiguous because there is more than one reasonable interpretation. Specifically, “a plant root” can be interpreted as being an arbitrary piece of biological matter in the soil, thus giving it little patentable weight, or as part of the claimed “plant to be grown”. Given this ambiguity, the scope of the claims is unclear. In regard to claims 8, 15, and 18, the claims state that various subject matters are grown “in presence of a tree.” This language is relative and thus indefinite due to the scope of the term ‘presence’ being nebulous to one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, presence may be reasonably interpreted as directly adjacent to the claimed subject matter or within 5, 10, 15 meters and so on. Therefore, the scope of the claims is unclear. 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. 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 . Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. US Patent Publication No. 2019/0194742 (hereinafter “Wu”) in view of Stamets US Patent Publication No. 2008/0046277 (hereinafter “Stamets”) FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" . In regard to claim 1, Wu teaches A method of introducing an ecosystem, the method comprising: collecting a sample from subject land in which a plant is grown ( Figure 1A, Paragraphs [0016]-[0017] and [0053]-[0054] disclose a system , including a computer, that analyzes a sample, an example sample including soil in which a crop is grown or to be grown.) ; examining a microbiome in the subject land before starting to grow the plant, the examining the microbiome including DNA analysis on the sample (Paragraph [0017] discloses sequencing of DNA or RNA and outputs the sequence reads of the sample. Said paragraph further discloses providing the output to an analytics system. ) ; determining the plant to be grown in the subject land based on a result of the examining the microbiome (Paragraphs [0017] -[ 0018] disclose an analytics system which identifies presence or measure of one or more particular organisms in the soil. Paragraph s [0019]and [0024] disclose that the information may include recommendations or metrics determined by the analytics system regarding a particular crop or group of crops.). However, where Wu does not explicitly disclose, Stamets teaches and introducing the plant to be grown to the subject land, the plant to be grown having an artificially developed symbiotic relationship to produce a priority effect with a microorganism, the microorganism being configured to contribute to growth of the plant to be grown in the subject land ( Stamets Paragraphs [00 59 ]-[0065] disclose planting seeds using a symbiotic relationship between fungi and said seeds that also includes incorporation of the fungi into the resulting plants providing benefits such as retaining moisture, staving off disease, etc. ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the combination of Wu and Stamets in order to assist plants with retaining moisture, absorbing nutrients, and enlisting other mutually beneficial organisms (Stamets Paragraph [0065]). In regard to claim 2, Wu, in view of Stamets, teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the determining the plant to be grown in the subject land includes determining the plant to be grown as a plant to change an ecosystem to undergo the introducing the plant to be grown to the subject land into a target ecosystem, and the target ecosystem is set as an ecosystem producing a predetermined economic value for the subject land (Wu Paragraph [0018] discloses an analytics system that may make recommendations to e.g. increase soil health or increase crop yield (reasonably interpreted to correspond to economic value) . Furthermore, note Stamets Paragraph s [0064] -[ 0065] disclose the implementation with seeds, fungi, and cardboard may change the ecological footprint for a variety of ecosystems. Note the motivation to combine as cited in the rejection of claim 1 is applicable.) . In regard to claim 3, Wu, in view of Stamets, teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the sample includes soil, and the microorganism includes a soil microorganism ( Wu Paragraphs [0017] -[ 0018] disclose processing soil samples and measuring organisms from sequence reads. ) . In regard to claim 4, Wu, in view of Stamets, teaches The method according to claim 3, wherein the microorganism includes a fungus (Wu Paragraph [0028] discloses the analytics system may determine, among other metrics, fungal diversity. Stamets Paragraphs [0059] -[ 0065] explicitly disclose a symbiotic relationship between plant and fungi. Note the motivation to combine as used in the rejection of claim 1 is applicable.) . In regard to claim 6, Wu, in view of Stamets, teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the ecosystem includes an agroecosystem in which a plant is cultivated (Wu Paragraph [0018] discloses recommendations for crops planting, use on fields, and providing information to farmers. Fields, among other context with in this citation, are interpreted to correspond to an agroecosystem and crops to a plant that is cultivated.) . In regard to claim 7, Wu, in view of Stamets, teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the ecosystem includes a forest ecosystem (Stamets [0064] lists multiple different types of ecosystems that the prior art is applicable to including forests. Note the motivation to combine as used in the rejection of claim 1 is applicable.) . In regard to claim 8, Wu, in view of Stamets, teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the ecosystem includes an agroforestry ecosystem in which a crop is grown in presence of a tree (Stamets Paragraph [0064] discloses the prior art being applicable to orchards. Note the motivation to combine as used in the rejection of claim 1 is applicable.) . Regarding claims 10-1 1 , the claim(s) recite(s) analogous limitations respectively to claim(s) 1- 4 above and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise . Regarding claims 13-15 , the claim(s) recite(s) analogous limitations respectively to claim(s) 1-2 and 6-8 above and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise . Regarding claims 16-18 , the claim(s) recite(s) analogous limitations respectively to claim(s) 1 , 3 - 4, and 6-8 above and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise . Claim(s) 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Stamets and further in view of Takemoto US Patent Publication No. 2006/0248793 (hereinafter “Takemoto”) FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" . In regard to claim 5, Wu, in view of Stamets, teaches The method according to claim 4, a nd the microorganism includes a fungus to form a symbiotic network with a root of the plant to be grown in soil ( Stamets Paragraphs [0059] -[ 0065] disclose planting seeds using a symbiotic relationship between fungi and said seeds that also includes incorporation of the fungi into the resulting plants providing benefits such as retaining moisture, staving off disease, etc. Note the motivation to combine as used in the rejection of claim 1 is applicable. ) . However, where Wu and Stamets do no explicitly teach, Takemoto discloses wherein the sample includes a plant root (Takemoto Paragraph [0045] discloses soil cores containing root material which are examined for fungi). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the combination of Wu, Stamets, and Takemoto in order to provide farmers or other users information to take a variety of actions to use on fields, when to plant, where to plant, what crops to plant, and which varietals of those crops to plant (Wu Paragraph [0018]). Regarding claim 12, the claim(s) recite(s) analogous limitations respectively to claim(s) 1-5 above and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise . Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokuyo et al. Japanese Patent Application No. 2019117613, as cited by applicant (hereinafter “Tokuyo”) in view of Wu (as cited above) . In regard to claim 9, Tokuyo teaches A method of managing value information about land, the method comprising: and causing the computer system to calculate a current value of the subject land, the current value being an economic value produced in a process of introducing a current ecosystem, the current ecosystem being an ecosystem constructed in the subject land at a time point during ecosystem reconstruction to introduce the target ecosystem (Paragraphs [0011]-[0012] , [0025]-[0026] , and [0048] disclose an apparatus that determines values of an ecosystem area including providing information for such functions as “erosion prevention” and “landslide prevention”. ) . However, where Tokuyo does not explicitly teach, Wu discloses redesigning, using a computer system, an ecosystem in subject land to set a target ecosystem and causing the computer system to calculate a target value, the target value being a future economic value of the subject land to be produced through introduction of the target ecosystem ( Wu Paragraphs [00 18 ]-[0021] disclose an analytic system that provides predictions such as crop yield (reading on economic value) as a result of a model and may provide recommendations to e.g. increase soil health or crop yield. ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Wu with that of Tokuyo in order to improve determination of a value of plants and animals present in a predetermined area (Tokuyo Paragraph [0006]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KEVIN K MCINNISH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1089 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9 am - 6 pm (Flexible Fridays) . 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, David Silver can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-8634 . 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. /KEVIN K MCINNISH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 6221