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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 10, 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, 13,17,18,55 of U.S. Patent No. 9,136,938 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
As to claim 1, claims 1, 3, 4, 13,18 of the cited patent disclose and teach the limitations and claim features recited herein, as is evident from a review of these respective claims. It is clear that the limitations and teachings of these claims are combinable with each other to reject the limitations of the instant claim 1 since all claims are in the same field of endeavor.
As to claim 10, claims 1, 13,17 of the cited patent disclose and teach the limitations and claim features recited herein, as is evident from a review of these respective claims. It is clear that the limitations and teachings of these claims are combinable with each other to reject the limitations of the instant claim 10 since all claims are in the same field of endeavor.
As to claim 14, claims 1, 3, 4, 13,18,55 of the cited patent disclose and teach the limitations and claim features recited herein, as is evident from a review of these respective claims. It is clear that the limitations and teachings of these claims are combinable with each other to reject the limitations of the instant claim 14 since all claims are in the same field of endeavor.
Claims 1, 10, 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,3,4,16 ,17 ,22 of U.S. Patent No. 9,941,950 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
As to claim 1, claims 1,3,4,16 of the cited patent disclose and teach the limitations and claim features recited herein, as is evident from a review of these respective claims. It is clear that the limitations and teachings of these claims are combinable with each other to reject the limitations of the instant claim 1 since all claims are in the same field of endeavor.
As to claim 10, claims 1, 16,22 of the cited patent disclose and teach the limitations and claim features recited herein, as is evident from a review of these respective claims. It is clear that the limitations and teachings of these claims are combinable with each other to reject the limitations of the instant claim 10 since all claims are in the same field of endeavor.
As to claim 14, claims 1,3,4,16 ,17 of the cited patent disclose and teach the limitations and claim features recited herein, as is evident from a review of these respective claims. It is clear that the limitations and teachings of these claims are combinable with each other to reject the limitations of the instant claim 14 since all claims are in the same field of endeavor.
Claims 1, 10, 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,2,3,17,18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,136,938 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
As to claim 1, claims 1,2,3,18 of the cited patent disclose and teach the limitations and claim features recited herein, as is evident from a review of these respective claims. It is clear that the limitations and teachings of these claims are combinable with each other to reject the limitations of the instant claim 1 since all claims are in the same field of endeavor.
As to claim 10, claims 1, 17 of the cited patent disclose and teach the limitations and claim features recited herein, as is evident from a review of these respective claims. It is clear that the limitations and teachings of these claims are combinable with each other to reject the limitations of the instant claim 10 since all claims are in the same field of endeavor.
As to claim 14, claims 1,3,4,18 of the cited patent disclose and teach the limitations and claim features recited herein, as is evident from a review of these respective claims. It is clear that the limitations and teachings of these claims are combinable with each other to reject the limitations of the instant claim 14 since all claims are in the same field of endeavor.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9,14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,444,451 to Johnson et al., in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0136420 A1 to Velikhov et al., further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0325684 A1 to Vogler et al.
As to claim 1, Johnson discloses
A method, comprising: receiving information at a transmitter with a processor that an event has occurred; preparing a skywave propagation signal with the processor at the transmitter upon the receiving the information (cols. 3-4 and col. 5, lines 1-20, Figs. 1,2,4, disclosing a transmitter determining to transmit signaling via skywave propagation, teaching that an event had occurred to cause this determination of a need to transmit information, teaching this limitation)
transmitting from the transmitter to a receiver the skywave propagation signal (cols. 3-4 and col. 5, lines 1-20, Figs. 1,2,4, disclosing a transmitter determining to transmit signaling via skywave propagation, teaching this limitation);
wherein the distance between the transmitter and the receiver is greater than a radio horizon for the transmitter (cols. 3-4 and col. 5, lines 1-20, Figs. 1,2,4, disclosing a skywave signaling transmission over a distance greater than the radio horizon of the receiver) ; receiving the skywave propagation signal at the receiver (cols. 3-4 and col. 5, lines 1-20, Figs. 1-4 and col. 10, disclosing receiving the skywave signaling at a receiver) and
performing at least one action in response to the receiving the skywave propagation signal (cols. 3-4 and col. 5, lines 1-20, Figs. 1-4 and col. 10, disclosing receiving the skywave signaling at a receiver, where in the receiver performs actions in response to the reception of the skywave signal).
Johnson does not appear to explicitly disclose transmitting from the transmitter to a receiver the skywave propagation signal that is within a minimum and maximum useable frequency range for skywave propagation.
Velikhov discloses transmitting from the transmitter to a receiver the skywave propagation signal that is within a minimum and maximum useable frequency range for skywave propagation. (Figs. 1-6, paragraph 48) .
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Velikhov discussed above, in conjunction with and to modify the teachings of Johnson, to reject the limitations of this claim, since both teachings pertain to the same field of endeavor regarding skywave transmissions and it would have been obvious to characterize the skywave transmissions in Johnson with the frequency range applicable to skywave propagation that is disclosed in Velikhov. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve and optimize skywave signal transmissions (Johnson, cols. 1-4; Velikhov, paragraphs 1-5, Figs. 1-6). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Velikhov and Johnson do not appear to explicitly disclose performing at least one financial transaction from a collection of potential financial transactions.
Vogler discloses performing at least one financial transaction from a collection of potential financial transactions (paragraphs 14-16, disclosing one of many potential financial transactions)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine and incorporate the performance of a financial transaction as disclosed in Vogler, in conjunction with and to modify the action performed in response to the receiving the skywave propagation signal as disclosed in Johnson, to reject “performing at least one financial transaction from a collection of potential financial transactions in response to the receiving the skywave propagation signal”, since both teachings pertain to utilizing electrical signaling to implement information communication systems. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve and optimize the performance of information communications systems (Johnson, cols. 1-4; Velikhov, paragraphs 1-5, Figs. 1-6; Vogler, paragraphs 1-16). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claim 2, Johnson, Velikhov and Vogler teach the method as in the parent claim 1.
Johnson further discloses wherein the transmitting the skywave propagation signal includes transmitting at an angle of transmission where the skywave propagation signal reflects from the ionosphere between the transmitter and the receiver (cols. 3-4 and col. 5, lines 1-20, Figs. 1,2,4, teaching reflection from the ionosphere 120).
As to claim 3, Johnson, Velikhov and Vogler teach the method as in the parent claim 1.
Johnson further discloses performing at least one action in response to the receiving the skywave propagation signal (cols. 3-4 and col. 5, lines 1-20, Figs. 1-4 and col. 10, disclosing receiving the skywave signaling at a receiver, where in the receiver performs actions in response to the reception of the skywave signal).
Johnson does not appear to disclose storing in memory a plurality of rules or preconditions for transacting on a financial exchange; selecting at least one of the rules or preconditions in response to the receiving the signal; and executing one or more trades on the financial exchange based on the selected rule or precondition from the selecting
Vogler discloses storing in memory a plurality of rules or preconditions for transacting on a financial exchange; selecting at least one of the rules or preconditions in response to the receiving the signal; and executing one or more trades on the financial exchange based on the selected rule or precondition from the selecting. (paragraphs 14-16, disclosing the electronic computerized performance of one of many potential financial transactions, thus necessarily teaching the storage of the recited rules and conditions)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine and incorporate the performance of transactions as disclosed in Vogler, in conjunction with and to modify the action performed in response to the receiving the skywave propagation signal as disclosed in Johnson, to reject the limitations of this claim, since both teachings pertain to utilizing electrical signaling to implement information communication systems. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve and optimize the performance of information communications systems (Johnson, cols. 1-4; Velikhov, paragraphs 1-5, Figs. 1-6; Vogler, paragraphs 1-16). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claim 4, Johnson, Velikhov and Vogler teach the method as in the parent claim 3.
Vogler discloses wherein the rules or preconditions were provided over a fiber optic cable. (paragraphs 16,23: fiber optic cables)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine and incorporate the performance of transactions as disclosed in Vogler, in conjunction with and to modify the action performed in response to the receiving the skywave propagation signal as disclosed in Johnson, to reject the limitations of this claim, since both teachings pertain to utilizing electrical signaling to implement information communication systems. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve and optimize the performance of information communications systems (Johnson, cols. 1-4; Velikhov, paragraphs 1-5, Figs. 1-6; Vogler, paragraphs 1-16). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claim 5, Johnson, Velikhov and Vogler teach the method as in the parent claim 3.
Velikhov discloses wherein the rules or preconditions were provided over an oceanic cable. (Figs. 1, 3-6, paragraph 41)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Velikhov discussed above, in conjunction with and to modify the teachings of Johnson, to reject the limitations of this claim, since both teachings pertain to the same field of endeavor regarding the utilization of skywave transmissions. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve and optimize skywave signaling and related transmissions (Johnson, cols. 1-4; Velikhov, paragraphs 1-5, Figs. 1-6). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claim 6, Johnson, Velikhov and Vogler teach the method as in the parent claim 1.
Velikhov discloses wherein the transmitter and the receiver are separated by an ocean. (Figs. 1, 3-6, paragraph 41)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Velikhov discussed above, in conjunction with and to modify the teachings of Johnson, to reject the limitations of this claim, since both teachings pertain to the same field of endeavor regarding the utilization of skywave transmissions. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve and optimize skywave signaling and related transmissions (Johnson, cols. 1-4; Velikhov, paragraphs 1-5, Figs. 1-6). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claim 7, Johnson, Velikhov and Vogler teach the method as in the parent claim 1.
Vogler discloses wherein the receiver includes a FPGA (paragraph 14: FPGA)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine and incorporate Vogler’s teachings, in conjunction with and to modify Johnson and Velikhov’s collective teachings, to reject the limitations of this claim, since both teachings pertain to utilizing electrical signaling to implement information communication systems. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve and optimize the performance of information communications systems (Johnson, cols. 1-4; Velikhov, paragraphs 1-5, Figs. 1-6; Vogler, paragraphs 1-16). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claim 8, Johnson, Velikhov and Vogler teach the method as in the parent claim 7.
Johnson further discloses performing at least one action in response to the receiving the skywave propagation signal (cols. 3-4 and col. 5, lines 1-20, Figs. 1-4 and col. 10, disclosing receiving the skywave signaling at a receiver, where in the receiver performs actions in response to the reception of the skywave signal).
Vogler discloses performing an update of the FPGA (paragraph 14: FPGA, whose well known feature is that it can be updated/programmable)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine and incorporate Vogler’s teachings, in conjunction with and to modify Johnson and Velikhov’s collective teachings, to reject the limitations of this claim, since both teachings pertain to utilizing electrical signaling to implement information communication systems. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve and optimize the performance of information communications systems (Johnson, cols. 1-4; Velikhov, paragraphs 1-5, Figs. 1-6; Vogler, paragraphs 1-16). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claim 9, Johnson, Velikhov and Vogler teach the method as in the parent claim 1.
Johnson further discloses further comprising: reflecting the skywave propagation signal from the F-layer of the ionosphere. (cols. 3-4 and col. 5, lines 1-20, Figs. 1-4 and col. 10, disclosing reflecting the skywave signaling from the F1/F1 layers of the ionosphere 120).
As to claim 14, see rejection for claim 4.
As to claim 15, Johnson, Velikhov and Vogler teach the method as in the parent claim 14.
Johnson further discloses wherein the transmitting the skywave propagation signal includes transmitting at an angle of transmission where the skywave propagation signal reflects from the ionosphere between the transmitter and the receiver (cols. 3-4 and col. 5, lines 1-20, Figs. 1,2,4, teaching reflection from the ionosphere 120).
As to claim 16, Johnson, Velikhov and Vogler teach the method as in the parent claim 14.
Velikhov discloses wherein the rules or preconditions were provided over an oceanic cable. (Figs. 1, 3-6, paragraph 41)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Velikhov discussed above, in conjunction with and to modify the teachings of Johnson, to reject the limitations of this claim, since both teachings pertain to the same field of endeavor regarding the utilization of skywave transmissions. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve and optimize skywave signaling and related transmissions (Johnson, cols. 1-4; Velikhov, paragraphs 1-5, Figs. 1-6). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claim 17, Johnson, Velikhov and Vogler teach the method as in the parent claim 14.
Velikhov discloses wherein the transmitter and the receiver are separated by an ocean. (Figs. 1, 3-6, paragraph 41)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Velikhov discussed above, in conjunction with and to modify the teachings of Johnson, to reject the limitations of this claim, since both teachings pertain to the same field of endeavor regarding the utilization of skywave transmissions. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve and optimize skywave signaling and related transmissions (Johnson, cols. 1-4; Velikhov, paragraphs 1-5, Figs. 1-6). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claim 18, Johnson, Velikhov and Vogler teach the method as in the parent claim 14.
Vogler discloses wherein the receiver includes a FPGA (paragraph 14: FPGA)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine and incorporate Vogler’s teachings, in conjunction with and to modify Johnson and Velikhov’s collective teachings, to reject the limitations of this claim, since both teachings pertain to utilizing electrical signaling to implement information communication systems. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve and optimize the performance of information communications systems (Johnson, cols. 1-4; Velikhov, paragraphs 1-5, Figs. 1-6; Vogler, paragraphs 1-16). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claim 19, Johnson, Velikhov and Vogler teach the method as in the parent claim 18.
Johnson further discloses performing at least one action in response to the receiving the skywave propagation signal (cols. 3-4 and col. 5, lines 1-20, Figs. 1-4 and col. 10, disclosing receiving the skywave signaling at a receiver, where in the receiver performs actions in response to the reception of the skywave signal).
Vogler discloses performing an update of the FPGA (paragraph 14: FPGA, whose well known feature is that it can be updated/programmable)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine and incorporate Vogler’s teachings, in conjunction with and to modify Johnson and Velikhov’s collective teachings, to reject the limitations of this claim, since both teachings pertain to utilizing electrical signaling to implement information communication systems. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve and optimize the performance of information communications systems (Johnson, cols. 1-4; Velikhov, paragraphs 1-5, Figs. 1-6; Vogler, paragraphs 1-16). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claim 20, Johnson, Velikhov and Vogler teach the method as in the parent claim 14.
Johnson further discloses further comprising: reflecting the skywave propagation signal from the F-layer of the ionosphere. (cols. 3-4 and col. 5, lines 1-20, Figs. 1-4 and col. 10, disclosing reflecting the skywave signaling from the F1/F1 layers of the ionosphere 120).
Claim(s) 10,13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,444,451 to Johnson et al., in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0325684 A1 to Vogler et al.
As to claim 10, Johnson discloses
A method, comprising: receiving information at a transmitter with a processor that an event has occurred; preparing a skywave propagation signal with the processor at the transmitter upon the receiving the information (cols. 3-4 and col. 5, lines 1-20, Figs. 1,2,4, disclosing a transmitter determining to transmit signaling via skywave propagation, teaching that an event had occurred to cause this determination of a need to transmit information, teaching this limitation)
transmitting the skywave propagation signal via skywave propagation from the transmitter to a receiver (cols. 3-4 and col. 5, lines 1-20, Figs. 1,2,4, disclosing a transmitter determining to transmit signaling via skywave propagation, teaching this limitation);
wherein the transmitting the skywave propagation signal includes transmitting at an angle of transmission where the skywave propagation signal reflects from the ionosphere between the transmitter and the receiver (cols. 3-4 and col. 5, lines 1-20, Figs. 1,2,4, teaching reflection from the ionosphere 120); receiving the skywave propagation signal at the receiver (cols. 3-4 and col. 5, lines 1-20, Figs. 1-4 and col. 10, disclosing receiving the skywave signaling at a receiver) and
performing at least one action in response to the receiving the skywave propagation signal (cols. 3-4 and col. 5, lines 1-20, Figs. 1-4 and col. 10, disclosing receiving the skywave signaling at a receiver, where in the receiver performs actions in response to the reception of the skywave signal).
Johnson does not appear to explicitly disclose performing at least one financial transaction from a collection of potential financial transactions.
Vogler discloses performing at least one financial transaction from a collection of potential financial transactions (paragraphs 14-16, disclosing one of many potential financial transactions)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine and incorporate the performance of a financial transaction as disclosed in Vogler, in conjunction with and to modify the action performed in response to the receiving the skywave propagation signal as disclosed in Johnson, to reject “performing at least one financial transaction from a collection of potential financial transactions in response to the receiving the skywave propagation signal”, since both teachings pertain to utilizing electrical signaling to implement information communication systems. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve and optimize the performance of information communications systems (Johnson, cols. 1-4; Velikhov, paragraphs 1-5, Figs. 1-6; Vogler, paragraphs 1-16). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claim 13, Johnson and Vogler teach the method as in the parent claim 10.
Johnson further discloses further comprising: reflecting the skywave propagation signal from the F-layer of the ionosphere. (cols. 3-4 and col. 5, lines 1-20, Figs. 1-4 and col. 10, disclosing reflecting the skywave signaling from the F1/F1 layers of the ionosphere 120).
Claim(s) 11,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,444,451 to Johnson et al., in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0325684 A1 to Vogler et al., further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0136420 A1 to Velikhov et al.
As to claim 11, Johnson and Vogler teach the method as in the parent claim 10.
Velikhov discloses wherein the transmitter and the receiver are separated by an ocean. (Figs. 1, 3-6, paragraph 41)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Velikhov discussed above, in conjunction with and to modify the teachings of Johnson, to reject the limitations of this claim, since both teachings pertain to the same field of endeavor regarding the utilization of skywave transmissions. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve and optimize skywave signaling and related transmissions (Johnson, cols. 1-4; Velikhov, paragraphs 1-5, Figs. 1-6). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claim 12, Johnson, Velikhov and Vogler teach the method as in the parent claim 11.
Johnson further discloses performing at least one action in response to the receiving the skywave propagation signal (cols. 3-4 and col. 5, lines 1-20, Figs. 1-4 and col. 10, disclosing receiving the skywave signaling at a receiver, where in the receiver performs actions in response to the reception of the skywave signal).
Johnson does not appear to disclose storing in memory a plurality of rules or preconditions for transacting on a financial exchange; selecting at least one of the rules or preconditions in response to the receiving the signal; and executing one or more trades on the financial exchange based on the selected rule or precondition from the selecting
Vogler discloses storing in memory a plurality of rules or preconditions for transacting on a financial exchange; selecting at least one of the rules or preconditions in response to the receiving the signal; and executing one or more trades on the financial exchange based on the selected rule or precondition from the selecting. (paragraphs 14-16, disclosing the electronic computerized performance of one of many potential financial transactions, thus necessarily teaching the storage of the recited rules and conditions)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine and incorporate the performance of transactions as disclosed in Vogler, in conjunction with and to modify the action performed in response to the receiving the skywave propagation signal as disclosed in Johnson, to reject the limitations of this claim, since both teachings pertain to utilizing electrical signaling to implement information communication systems. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve and optimize the performance of information communications systems (Johnson, cols. 1-4; Velikhov, paragraphs 1-5, Figs. 1-6; Vogler, paragraphs 1-16). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHI TANG P CHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-9021. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30AM - 6PM.
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, Asad M Nawaz can be reached at (571)272-3988. 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.
/CHI TANG P CHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights