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 .
Application Status
This office action is responsive to the claims filed on 04/14/2025.
Per the claim amendments filed on 04/14/2025, Claims 1-3 are pending and presented for examination1. Claims 4-14 has been withdraw.
The claim objections has been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments.
The drawings objections has been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments.
The previous 35 USC 112 rejections has been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments.
The previous 35 USC 101 rejections has been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments.
This action has been made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant alleged the following on page 6: “4. Regarding 35 USC 102 rejection on page 8 - 19, paragraph 12 - 13, The prior art "Machine learning for image-based species identification" by Waldchen, published on August 13, 2018, focused on the technologies used to automatically identify plant species and how the rapid increase of biological image data made that possible. The patent application in concern, however, is about utilizing technologies to make the vast live plant and herbarium image data available on mobile devices for easy access and annotation. Any previous claims referencing automatic identification of plant species are removed from the amendment.” The examiner is not persuaded. Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them. Additionally, the examiner maintains Wäldchen teaches the Applicant’s claim language in view of the pending 35 USC 112 - New Matter rejection. MPEP § 2106 states Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a mobile application”. For clarity purposes, the examiner suggests replacing “a mobile application” with “a mobile device application”. Further the examiner suggests amending the claim body to incorporate “a mobile device application” into the body of the claim.
Claim 1 recites “such as”. The examiner suggests replacing “such as” with “including”.
Claim 2 recites “as defined in claim 1”. The examiner suggests removing such language.
The dependent claims are objected for depending upon objected independent claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
35 USC 112 Rejections
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 pre-AIA 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the following claim limitations:
“a predefined region”
“a backend module”
“querying”
“partitioned datasets”
“a data synchronization system”
“update region-specific datasets”
“a data synchronization system ensure that updates to any regional dataset”
However, these claim limitations are not supported by the originally filed specification and therefore, considered NEW MATTER.
Claim 2 recites the following claim limitations:
“interactive UI”
“predefined regions”
However, these claim limitations are not supported by the originally filed specification and therefore, considered NEW MATTER.
Claim 3 recites the following claim limitations:
“regional datasets”
“classifications”
“ecological attributes”
“photographic references”
However, these claim limitations are not supported by the originally filed specification and therefore, considered NEW MATTER.
The dependent claims are rejected for depending upon rejected independent claims.
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 1-3 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 downloading”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation and therefore this claim is rendered as indefinite.
The dependent claims are rejected for depending upon rejected independent claims.
35 U.S.C. 102 Rejection
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wäldchen, Titled: “Machine learning for image based species identification”, Publication Date: August 13, 2018.
Claim 1:
Wäldchen discloses a mobile application for herbarium and live plants (“Smart mobile devices, digital cameras as well as the mass digitization of natural history collections led to an explosion of openly available image data depicting living organisms.” See Abstract & Figure 1; Section 5: RECENT RESEARCH STUDIES USING DEEP LEARNING FOR SPECIES IDENTIFICATION; Section 6: NEXT GENERATION FIELD GUIDES USING DEEP LEARNING TECHNIQUES), comprising:
a user interface configured to receive a selection of a predefined region from a user, wherein 'region’ encompasses geographical areas and territories worldwide, such as continents, countries, states, provinces, cities, TDWG (Taxonomic Databases Working Group) botanical regions, other recognized biogeographical divisions, and user-defined areas (See Table 1: Table 1 lists the five currently most popular frameworks in terms of GitHub stars, a common method for measuring the relevance of open-source software. While all five and many other frameworks are suitable to train a new model, we want to emphasize two of them specifically. If you are just starting out with deep learning, a solid selection is Keras on top of TensorFlow. Keras offers an additional graphical interface to TensorFlow and simplifies many steps);
and a user interface facilitates the downloading of plant data specific to the selected region (See Table 1: Table 1 lists the five currently most popular frameworks in terms of GitHub stars, a common method for measuring the relevance of open-source software. While all five and many other frameworks are suitable to train a new model, we want to emphasise two of them specifically. If you are just starting out with deep learning, a solid selection is Keras on top of TensorFlow. Keras offers an additional graphical interface to TensorFlow and simplifies many steps);
and a backend module configured to partition a database into region-specific datasets corresponding to predefined regions (“Many activities, such as studying the biodiversity richness of a region, monitoring populations of endangered species, deter-mining the impact of climate change on species distribution and weed control actions depend on accurate identification skills.” See Page 2216);
and a backend module optimized for querying and data transfer by utilizing the partitioned datasets (“the app also offers automated identification trained on the database of “research grade” observations.” See Paragraph 2222-2223);
and a data synchronization system configured to update region-specific datasets in real time (“real world” See Page 2217 & “alive when taking the picture” See Page 2221);
and a data synchronization system ensure that updates made to any regional dataset are reflected across the application and accessible to users selecting the corresponding region (“Many activities, such as studying the biodiversity richness of a region, monitoring populations of endangered species, deter-mining the impact of climate change on species distribution and weed control actions depend on accurate identification skills.” See Page 2216).
Claim 2:
Wäldchen discloses wherein the user interface further comprises an interactive UI (See Section 4, Page 2220) for selecting predefined regions (See Page 2217).
Claim 3:
Wäldchen discloses wherein the regional datasets include taxonomic classifications (See 2.2 Classification: The output of feature extraction is typically a vector (cp. x in Figure 1), which is than mapped to a score of confidence using a classifier. Depending on the application, the score is either compared to a threshold solely deciding whether an object is present or not (e.g. presence of a plant or animal in the image), or it is compared to other scores to distinguish object classes (e.g. species name). Prominent classification methods are machine learning algorithms such as support vector machines, Random Forest and artificial neuronal network (ANN)), ecological attributes, and photographic references for plants within the selected region (“We can look forward to a time when there will be huge repositories of taxonomic information, represented by specimen images, accessible publicly through the internet” See Pages 2221 & 2224).
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20120257021 discloses information processing method and information processing system which examines a flower based on an imaged image.
US 20060224327 discloses an improved method for the selection and identification of plant species and genera using an improved database of plant information.
US 20050192760 discloses a process for compiling a database of plants, and the use of the database for the identification of plant species and genera.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEREE N BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-4229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00 PM EST.
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, SAID BROOME can be reached on (571) 272-2931. 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.
/SHEREE N BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612 October 20, 2025
1 See page 1-2 “clean version” of the amendments filed on 04/14/2025.
2 The claims are rejected in view of the pending 35 USC 112 New Matter Rejection.