DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on April 15, 2026. Claims 1-9, 11-15, 19, and 20 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 Arguments
1. Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection of the claims setforth in the Office action dated January 30,2026.
2. Applicant submits that the “present technique makes it possible to identify components useful for evaluating the state of an ecosystem” and that “the claims reflect this improvement to technology.”
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hence, “bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art” is not considered a technology improvement. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
Additionally, in light of the amendments the claims are no longer directed to an abstract idea of collecting data from multiple data sources, analyzing the results. However, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained for reasons described below.
3. The amendment to the specification filed March 26, 2026 is acknowledged. The objection to the disclosure has been withdrawn.
4. Applicant asserts that “Ono fails to describe that the alleged indicator of the feature of the ecosystem is indicative of features of others of the components of the ecosystem.”
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ono discloses this feature at Fig. 6 -7B.
5. Applicant argues that Neumann does not qualify as prior art because it has an effective priority data of October 11, 2022.
However, the examiner notes that Neumann continuation-part-part application is a continuation of application no. 17/062,740 (“’740 application), filed on October 5, 2020 now U.S. Patent No. 11,544,275. The ‘740 application supports the details relied upon for claims 7 and 8.
6. Other arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of the claims have been considered, but are moot in light of the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. The claim recites (AR) instead of “Augmented Reality (AR)” at line 3. 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 1-20 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 "the indicator of the feature of the ecosystem" in lines 8 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-18 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the indicator of the feature of the ecosystem" in lines 8 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the indicator of the feature of the ecosystem" in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “appropriate” in claims 1, 19, and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “appropriate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-18 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable. Claim 19 is directed to a device and claim 20 is directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
For example, claim 1 recites an abstract idea of analyzing and evaluating data. The claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “method processes” grouping of abstract ideas as they relate to analyzing and evaluating data. More specifically, the following the bolded claim elements recite additional elements while the other claim elements recite the abstract idea. according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A non-transitory computer readable medium containing program instructions for causing a computer to perform information processing, the information processing comprising:
analyzing ecosystem information of a plurality of ecosystems,
specifying, based on the analyzing, from components of the ecosystem information, an indicator element to serve as an indicator of a feature of an ecosystem, wherein the indicator element is a subset of the components of the ecosystem and the indicator of the feature of the ecosystem is indicative of features of others of the components of the ecosystem; and
determining whether management of the ecosystem is appropriate based on the specified
indicator element.
Independent claims 19 and 20 recite similar language.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the non-transitory computer readable medium and indicator element are merely used as tools to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of analyzing and evaluating data. Viewed as a whole, the use of non-transitory computer readable medium and indicator element as tools to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer or computer networks performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), the additional element(s) of the non-transitory computer readable medium and indicator element to perform the steps amounts to no more than using generic hardware or software to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of analyzing and evaluating data. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of analyzing and evaluating data. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea such as controlling presentation of the indicator element by transmitting the name of the indicator element to a terminal; and
evaluating, using the indicator elements of a target ecosystem to be evaluated, calculates an evaluation score for evaluating a state of the targe ecosystem.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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 1-6, 9-11, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2023/0121145 to Ono (“Ono”) in view of JP2013168135A to Oguchi (“Oguchi”)
As per claim 1, Ono discloses analyzing ecosystem information of a plurality of ecosystems, specifying, based on the analyzing, from components of the ecosystem information, an indicator element to serve as an indicator of a feature of an ecosystem (paragraphs [0053]-[0058] -information management system and ecosystem information DB) and the indicator of the features of the ecosystem is indicative of features of others of the components of the ecosystem (Fig. 6 -7B).
wherein the indicator element is a subset of the components of the ecosystem (paragraph [0080] – the selected organism selected from the candidate selected organisms).
Ono does not expressly disclose determining whether management of the ecosystem is appropriate based on the specified indicator element.
Oguchi discloses determining whether management of the ecosystem is appropriate based on the specified indicator element (Abstract; Fig. 2 and related text).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the elements of Oguchi into Ono as the system provides effective ecosystem evaluation means. Hence, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, Ono discloses controlling presentation of the indicator element by transmitting the name of the indicator element to a terminal (paragraph [0053] – display unit). Transmitting the name to terminal this is considered nonfunctional descriptive material that is not functionally involved in the system. The display unit of Ono would perform the same regardless of the data is being displayed. Hence, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in term of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983): In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
As per claim 3, Ono discloses using the indicator elements of a target ecosystem to be evaluated, calculating an evaluation score for evaluating a state of the target ecosystem (paragraph [0054]- backend of the business server group).
As per claim 4, Ono discloses as the indicator element, the specifying unit specifies the component for which an evaluation score is calculated such that ecosystems having different states are distinguished from each other (Fig. 3B and paragraph [0060]).
As per claim 5, Ono discloses specifying the component that serves as an indicator of a similarity with a specific ecosystem (Fig. 3B; paragraph [0060]).
As per claim 6, Ono discloses specifying a component that serves as an indicator of a similarity with the specific ecosystem designated by a user or the specific ecosystem having a distribution with respect to a plant according to a power law (Fig. 3B; paragraph [0060]).
As per claim 9, Ono discloses calculating a predicted value of the specific component using a prediction formula that predicts the specific component using the indicator element (paragraph [0037]).
As per claim 10, Ono discloses the specific component is information pertaining to biodiversity or metabolites (claim 1 above and Fig. 6).
As per claim 11, Ono discloses as the evaluation score, calculating a predicted value of a degree of conformity using a prediction formula that, using the indicator element, predicts a value representing a distribution pertaining to a plant in an ecosystem following a power law (Figs. 3-7 and claim 7 above).
As per claim 15, Ono discloses selecting as an indicator element candidate, a component in the ecosystem information that belongs to an element group, among element groups classified according to properties of components, to which a predetermined component does not belong (paragraph [0010] and [0054]-computer) .
As per claim 16, Ono discloses the ecosystem information includes, as the component, some or all of: climate information, vegetation information, chemical information, physical information, and biological information of soil of the ecosystem, and chemical information, physical information, and biological information of plants (Fig. 3B). The claims recite the conditional /optional language “--or." Although the conditional/optional language has been considered, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2111.04: "Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation."
As per claim 17, Ono discloses the ecosystem information includes, as the component, some or all of: a climate zone, amount of precipitation, and sunlight intensity of the ecosystem, a coverage rate of vegetation covering topsoil, and a percentage of a niche of the vegetation, pH, Electric Conductivity (EC), hardness, and exchangeable potassium content of soil, and soil microbial diversity, and a chloroplast content, a nitrate ion concentration, and a flavonoid expression level of an individual plant, a coverage rate of a plant species covering topsoil, and plant diversity (Fig. 3B). Although the conditional/optional language has been considered, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2111.04: "Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation."
As per claim 18, Ono discloses the ecosystem information includes a qualitative variable component and a quantitative variable component (Fig. 3-7).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected on the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 7, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2024/0346029 to Neumann.
As per claim 7, Ono discloses the specifying unit. Ono does not expressly disclose performing logistic regression analysis with L1 regularization, using a dummy variable indicating whether an ecosystem is the specific ecosystem as a response variable and the component of the ecosystem information of the plurality of ecosystems including the specific ecosystem as an explanatory variable, and specifies the component serving as the explanatory variable remaining in the L1 regularization as the indicator element. Neumann discloses this feature (paragraph [0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the elements of Neumann into system of Ono. Hence, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 8, Neuman discloses wherein using the indicator element of a target ecosystem to be evaluated, a result of computing a linear predictor obtained through the logistic regression analysis, or a posterior probability that the target ecosystem is the specific ecosystem, is calculated as an evaluation score for evaluating a state of the target ecosystem (paragraphs [0098] and [0112]). Also, the “wherein clause” has been considered; however, it merely expresses the intended results. See MPEP§ 2111.04. It is not a step that needs to be performed and does not patentable distinguish over the disclosure of the prior art
As per claim 12, Neuman discloses an evaluation score predictor that, using a trained model that takes vegetation information of an ecosystem as an input and outputs an evaluation score for evaluating the state of the ecosystem calculated using the indicator element of the ecosystem, calculates a predicted value for the evaluation score of an ecosystem having vegetation represented by predetermined vegetation information (paragraphs [0068] and [0117]).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono and Oguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO2017061281A1 to Funabashi (“Funabashi”)
Ono in view of Oguchi disclose the method of claim 1. The references do not expressly disclose generating an AR object representing an evaluation score for evaluating the state of the target ecosystem to be evaluated, calculated using the indicator element of the target ecosystem, or the component of the target ecosystem, the AR object being displayed as AR in a predetermined space containing the target ecosystem, and transmits the AR object to a terminal that performs AR display.
Funabashi discloses generating an AR object representing an evaluation score for evaluating the state of the target ecosystem to be evaluated, calculated using the indicator element of the target ecosystem, or the component of the target ecosystem, the AR object being displayed as AR in a predetermined space containing the target ecosystem, and transmits the AR object to a terminal that performs AR display (abstract; step s33 – calculates the score).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the elements of Funabashi into the system Ono in combination with Oguchi as the system provides effective ecosystem evaluation means. Hence, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 14, Funabashi discloses generating the AR object representing the indicator element of the target ecosystem (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JALATEE WORJLOH whose telephone number is (571)272-6714. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:00am-2:00pm.
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, John Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/Jalatee Worjloh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights