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 .
This Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed May 30th, 2023. Claims 1-9 are pending, of which claims 1-9 are currently rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 Line 3 “but no a supporting” should be “but not a supporting”
Claim 6 is objected to based on its dependence on a previously objected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an environmental similarity” on line 11. It is unclear if this mention of “an environmental similarity” is the same “environmental similarity” as recited in claim 1 line 8. For examination purposes, the environmental similarity of line 11 claim 1 will be construed to be the same environmental similarity of line 8 claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Because claims 2-9 depend upon claim 1, claims 2-9 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the weights” on line 5. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the relationship” on line 4. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Because claims 5-6 depend upon claim 4, claims 5-6 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the uncertainty value” on line 5. It is unclear if this “uncertainty value” is the same as “an uncertainty” of claim 8 line 2. For examination purposes, the uncertainty value of claim 8 line 5 will be construed to be the same uncertainty as recited on claim 8 line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the weights” on line 5. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by M. Sheng et al. (“Prediction modeling of isoscapes for stable isotopes in China’s rice based on environmental similarity”, 2021) (hereinafter “Sheng”).
Regarding claim 1, Sheng teaches:
A spatial prediction method of rice stable isotope based on environmental similarity, comprising:
(1) describing environmental characteristics of the rice stable isotope, and screening factors that have great influence on the rice stable isotope as auxiliary variables in prediction process (Pg. 9/16 Lines 224-225 and Pg. 10/16 Lines 226-231);
(2) measuring an environmental similarity between a site to be predicted and a sample site, wherein a similarity for a single factor between the site to be predicted and the sample site is calculated, and similarity for each influence factor is synthesized by using a weighted average method to obtain a value of the environmental similarity between the site to be predicted and the sample site (Pg. 11/16 Lines 257-264 and Equation (3) for weighted average computation in order to compute an environmental similarity value);
(3) measuring a reliability of the sample site, wherein the reliability of the sample site is calculated by using an environmental similarity between sample sites and a similarity for a target variable (pg. 10/16 Lines 248-252 and Equation (2)); and
(4) carrying out a spatial prediction on the rice stable isotope according to the environmental similarity between the site to be predicted and the sample site and the reliability of the sample site (Pg. 11/16 Lines 257-269 and Equation (3)).
Regarding claim 2, Sheng further teaches:
The spatial prediction method according to claim 1, wherein step (2) comprises: calculating the environmental similarity for the single factor by using a Gower similarity calculation method, which is expressed as:
E
e
v
i
,
e
v
j
=
1
-
|
e
v
i
-
e
v
j
|
R
a
n
g
e
(
v
)
wherein E(●) is a function used to calculate a similarity of a single environmental variable; evi and evj are characteristics of a v-th environmental variable at site i and site j, respectively; and Range(v) represents a range of the v-th environment variable (Pg. 10/16 Lines 232-241 and Equation 1).
Regarding claim 4, Sheng further teaches:
The spatial prediction method according to claim 1, wherein in step (3), the environmental similarity between the sample sites and the similarity for the target variable are calculated, and a threshold parameter (p1) of the environmental similarity and a threshold parameter (p2) of the similarity of the target variable are set, the relationship between the sample sites is determined (Pg. 10/16 Lines 248-252).
Regarding claim 5, Sheng further teaches:
The spatial prediction method according to claim 4, wherein as supporting sample sites increase, the reliability increases; as contradictory sample sites increases, the reliability reduces; if the sample site has only a contradictory sample site but no a supporting sample site, the reliability of the same site is 0, and if there is neither a supporting sample site nor a contradiction site, the reliability of the sample site is unknown, which is set to a null value “NoData” (Pg. 10/16 Lines 248-252).
Regarding claim 6, Sheng further teaches:
The spatial prediction method according to claim 5, wherein a calculation formula of the reliability of the sample site is as follows:
r
i
=
∑
k
=
1
n
s
T
S
i
,
k
n
s
×
n
s
n
s
+
n
c
,
n
s
+
n
c
>
0
a
n
d
n
s
≠
0
0
,
n
c
>
0
a
n
d
n
s
=
0
N
o
D
a
t
a
,
n
s
+
n
c
=
0
wherein ri refers to a reliability of a sample site i; ns and nc represent a number of supporting sample sites and a number of contradictory sample sites for the sample site i, respectively; TSi,k is based on the similarity for the target variable between the sample site i and the supporting sample site (Pg. 10/16 Equation (2) and Pg. 11/16 Lines 254-256).
Regarding claim 7, Sheng further teaches:
The spatial prediction method according to claim 1, wherein in step (4), calculating a stable isotope value of the site to be predicted based on steps (2) and (3) comprises: calculating a value of each site to be predicted by using the weighted average method, and a formula is as follows:
V
j
=
∑
i
=
1
n
'
s
j
i
×
V
i
∑
i
=
1
n
'
s
j
i
wherein n’ is a number of sample sites satisfying a prediction condition, and Sji is an environmental similarity between a site to be predicted j and a sample site i; and Vi is a target variable value of the sample site i, that is, the stable isotope value (Pg. 11/16 Lines 257-269 and Equation (3)).
Regarding claim 8, Sheng further teaches:
The spatial prediction method according to claim 7, wherein a calculation formula of an uncertainty of the prediction is as follows:
U
j
=
1
-
m
a
x
(
S
j
1
×
r
1
,
S
j
2
×
r
2
,
…
,
S
j
n
×
r
n
)
wherein n is a number of sample sites, and Sjn is an environmental similarity of a sample site set for the prediction; rn is the reliability of the sample site, and as the similarity and the reliability increases, the uncertainty value of the prediction reduces (Pg. 11/16 Lines 262-269 and Equation (4)).
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.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng further in view of M. D’Orazio (“Distances with Mixed-Type Variables, some Modified Gower’s Coefficients”, 2021) (hereinafter “D’Ozario”).
Regarding claim 3, while Sheng teaches the spatial prediction method according to claim 1, Sheng does not explicitly teach the weighted average computation taking place with respect to the E(dot) i.e., the Gower similarity values.
However, D’Orazio teaches the weighted average computation taking place with respect to the E(dot) i.e., the Gower similarity values (D’Orazio: Pg. 6 Equation [5]).
It would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the the weighted average computation using Gower similarity values as taught by D’Ozario with the spatial prediction method as taught by Sheng because both teachings are directed towards computations Gower similarities using statistical computations. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings because doing so attenuates the impact of outliers in the ratio-scaled variables and balances the contribution of the different variables to the overall computation (D’Orazio: Pg. 4 first paragraph).
Claim 9 recites the method of claim 3 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons therein.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A. Zhu et al. (“Spatial prediction based on Third Law of Geography”, 2018) teaches a process for making effective spatial predictions based on various factors known as the First, Second, and Third Laws of Geography.
J. Liu et al. (“A trustworthiness indicator to select sample points for the individual predictive soil mapping method (iPSM)”, 2020) teaches evaluating and increasing the reliability of sample points retrieved during analysis in order to have more accurate spatial predictions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA DE JESUS RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-2793. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-5PM.
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, James Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
/M.D.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2151
/James Trujillo/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2151
