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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18, as originally filed 12/12/2024, are pending and have been examined on the merits (claims 1 and 10 being independent). The applicant’s claim for benefit of provisional application 62/185,201, filed 06/26/2015 has been received and 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “near” in the claims 1, 8, 10, and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” 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. The claim limitation “near” is unclear because what is “near to” to one location might not be “near to” to another location.
In claims 1 and 10, the recited claim "in response to detection of the stretch-to-expand gesture" is not described in the application as filed and it is a lack of clarity. For instances, after same detection of the stretch-to-expand gesture on the display screen, it displays different frequency of the time increments and different strike level along the vertical axis (i.e. it should not have different outputs from the stretch-to-expand gesture). Examiner is not clear how to interpret these claim languages. As such the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Dependent claims (2-9 and 11-18) stand rejected also, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on a rejected claim.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step (1): In the instant case, the claims are directed towards to a method for trading financial instruments that are tied to a future event and condition which contains the steps of rendering, detecting, increasing, decreasing, receiving, displaying, and removing. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is direct to an apparatus and claim 10 is direct to a method, i.e. machines programmed to carrying out process steps, Step 1-yes.
Step (2A) Prong 1: A method for trading financial instruments that are tied to a future event and condition is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial or legal interactions. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include: {… comprising a horizontal axis and a vertical axis such that time increments are shown distributed along the horizontal axis and strike prices are shown distributed along the vertical axis; detect a stretch-to-expand gesture…; in response to detection of the stretch-to-expand gesture, refresh the time increments along the horizontal axis and display less strike levels along the vertical axis; detect a pinch-to-shrink gesture…; in response to detection of the stretch-to-expand gesture, decrease a frequency of the time increments, refresh the time increments along the horizontal axis and display additional strike levels along the vertical axis; receive market data from a plurality of providers at a predefined time interval; detect a selection of a given strike price from the vertical axis and a given time from the horizontal axis; receive, …., an order for a binary option at the given strike price, the binary option being based on a weather related event occurring at or near the given time within a radius of a zip code; displaying … a highest bid price and a lowest bid price and an index of the received bids and offers; removing an order higher than a first predetermined threshold price amount or lower than a second predetermined threshold price amount before the index is computed.}
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial or legal interactions as receiving market data, detecting a selection of a given strike price, displaying a highest bid price and a lowest bid price, and removing an order higher or lower than a first predetermined threshold price amount before the index is computed.
Step (2A) Prong 2: The instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because additional elements of 1) “at least one processor” amounts to simply applying the abstract idea to a computer component. (e.g. “apply it”) 2) a “touch sensitive display screen” and a “graphical user interface”, describe transmitting instructions to a generic device. The “touch sensitive display screen” is not described in the specification in such a way require anything more than merely a generically “interactive” display, and therefore also amounts to simply applying the abstract idea to a computer component and client combination, or again describes a generically interactive element. (e.g. “apply it” or the equivalent) do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. a touch sensitive display screen, processor, a graphical user interface) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely use a generic computing technology (Specification paragraph [0028]: a server, processors, memory, general purpose computers, ) as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea
Step (2B): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (Claims: e.g., a touch sensitive display screen, processor, a graphical user interface) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exactly using a computer. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea.
The computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer “specialized,” nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. Also, the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). Hence, the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using generic computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05 (f) (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, in claims 2 and 11, the step of “determine weather related event within the radius a plurality of times before the given time.” (i.e., determining weather related event), in claims 3 and 12, the step of “enable a user to specify location, time, and event parameters for the weather related event.” (i.e., specifying location, time, and event parameters), in claims 4 and 13, the step of “… receive weather related data...” (i.e., receiving data), in claims 5 and 14, the step of “… receive a selection of a closing time for the binary option.” (i.e., receiving a selection), in claims 6 and 15, the step of “… display information related to best available markets for each strike price ...” (i.e., displaying data), in claims 7 and 16, the step of “… display next best bids and next best offers...” (i.e., displaying data), in claims 8 and 17, the step of “… calculate a payout... determines that the weather related event occurred at or near the given time within the radius.” (i.e., calculating a payout), and in claims 9 and 18, the step of “… calculate the payout …. determines that the weather related event occurred within the radius at a specific time after the given time.” (i.e., calculating a payout) are all processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice but for the recitation of a generic computer component. Performing a trade for financial instruments that are tied to a future event and condition is a most fundamental commercial process.
This is an abstract concept with nothing more and is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
In dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18, the step claimed are rejected under the same analysis and rationale as the independent claims 1 and 10 above. Merely claiming the same process using a touch display screen for trading financial instruments based on future event and conditions does not change the abstract idea without an inventive concept or significantly more. Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
Therefore, claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lutnick et al. (hereinafter Lutnick), US Publication Number 2012/0221456 A1 in view of Lentz et al. (hereinafter Lentz), US Publication Number 2016/0225171 A1 in further view of Amaitis et al. (hereinafter Amaitis), US Publication Number 2004/0139031 A1.
Regarding claim 1:
Lutnick discloses the following:
An apparatus comprising: (Lutnick: See paragraph [0008])
at least one processor to: (Lutnick: See paragraph [0008])
render on the display screen (reads on “The example interface includes a panel 103 through which a trader may view information about a selected instrument….. The user may operate one or more controls to adjust the displayed information (e.g., add more charts, change charts, increase or decrease a time frame or level of zoom, etc.).”) a graphical user interface comprising a horizontal axis and a vertical axis such that time increments are shown distributed along the horizontal axis and strike prices are shown distributed along the vertical axis; (Lutnick: See fig. 1 and paragraphs [0102-0112])
detect a selection of a given strike price from the vertical axis and a given time from the horizontal axis; (Lutnick: See paragraph [0106]: “three frames 109 a-c that relate to three separate binary options markets. Information populating these frames may be obtained from an exchange in response to a selection of the underlying instrument, a selection and/or adjustment of a time, and/or a selection and/or adjustment of a strike price. It should be recognized that three frames are shown as an example only and that other embodiments may include any number as desired (e.g., a number based on an interface resolution and/or size).”)
receive (reads on “If a user presses a buy button an order to buy (e.g., taking the position that the underlying instrument will end higher than the strike price) may be placed. Information identifying that order may be sent to the exchange. The exchange may attempt to execute the order and notify the trader of the results. Such results may be displayed through the interface or some other interface.”), via the graphical user interface, an order for a binary option at the given strike price, the binary option (reads on “a binary option may relate to an underlying poll of political candidates, an underlying chance of a weather event happening, and so on……a binary option may relate to whether or not a hurricane happens in a particular location, city, county, country, etc. (e.g., a binary option may pay to a buyer if a hurricane happens in the time frame and may pay to a seller if the hurricane does not happen in the time frame).”) being based on a weather related event occurring at or near the given time within a radius of a zip code; (Lutnick: See paragraphs [0032] and [0110-0111])
removing an order higher than a first predetermined threshold price amount or lower than a second predetermined threshold price amount before the index is computed. (Lutnick: See paragraph [0030]: “some values may be removed from the most recent quotations when determining such indices. For example, a highest and lowest one and/or two values from the most recent quotations may be removed. An average, mean, median, and/or mode may be determined from the quotations after removing any desired values as the value for each currency pair index.”, and see also [0099])
Lutnick does not explicitly disclose the following, however Lentz further teaches:
a touch sensitive display screen; and (Lentz: See paragraph [0039]: “when a user has access to a display with a touch screen, a common gesture is to "spread" fingers a part to magnify a particular portion of the display or "squeeze" fingers together to compress a particular portion of the display.”)
detect a stretch-to-expand gesture on the touch sensitive display screen; (Lentz: See paragraph [0053]: “When a horizontal stretch gesture 350 is initiated, the underlying graphic is stretched horizontally to a desired scale or form a graphic with a desired horizontal scaling width.”)
in response to detection of the stretch-to-expand gesture (reads on “a horizontal stretch gesture”), increase a frequency of the time increments (reads on “a horizontal stretch increases row width (or the time interval represented by each row) at step 410”), refresh the time increments along the horizontal axis and display less strike levels along the vertical axis; (Lentz: See paragraphs [0054] and [0044]: “To reverse the display type transition performed at step 310 (e.g., made by a horizontal compression gesture), an expansion of the stacked timeline 240 back to a tickertape timeline 230 may be performed using a horizontal stretch gesture 350 (e.g., moving fingers apart on a touch screen interface, etc.).”, and Note: As cited, after a horizontal stretch gesture (e.g., a stretch-to-expand gesture), increase a frequency of the time increments from 12-hour intervals to 24-hour intervals on the horizontal axis (e.g., fig. 7) and also displays less row levels from 12 levels of the row (e.g., fig. 8) to 6 levels of the row (fig. 7) on the vertical axis.)
detect a pinch-to-shrink gesture on the touch sensitive display screen; (Lentz: See paragraph [0055]: “When a horizontal compress gesture 310 is initiated, the underlying graphic is compressed horizontally and the row width (or time interval represented by each row) is decreased at step 440.”)
in response to detection of the stretch-to-expand gesture (reads on “a horizontal compression gesture”), decrease a frequency of the time increments (reads on “compressed into a 12-hour interval”), refresh the time increments along the horizontal axis and display additional strike levels along the vertical axis; (Lentz: See paragraph [0044]: “the stacked timeline 240 may be further compressed by a horizontal compression gesture as shown in FIG. 8. The example event graphic depicted in FIG. 8 shows the stacked timeline of FIG. 7 (e.g., in 24-hour intervals or days) wrapped into 12-hour intervals. The data on the horizontal axis has been compressed into a 12-hour interval, while the vertical axis represents half-days or 12-hour intervals.”, and Note: As cited, after a horizontal compression gesture (e.g., a pinch-to-shrink gesture), decreases a frequency of the time increments from 24-hour intervals to 12-hour intervals on the horizontal axis (e.g., fig. 8) and also displays additional row level from 6 levels of the row (e.g., fig. 7) to 12 levels of the row (fig. 8) on the vertical axis.)
It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a touch display screen that detects a gesture which is to "spread" fingers a part to magnify a particular portion of the display in the method of Lutnick as further taught by Lentz because it would be an easy and convenient way to adjust the displayed information on the display screen (Lentz: [0039]). Further because 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.
Lutnick and Lentz do not explicitly disclose the following, however Amaitis further teaches:
receive (reads on “The bid price, ask price, market price, market capitalization, trading volume, price-to-earnings, price-to-book information may be updated, for example, in real-time, at periodic intervals, or when updates become available.”) market data from a plurality of providers at a predefined time interval; (Amaitis: See paragraph [0069]: “Securities-in-index window 330 shows the securities in the current index and a percentage of total market capitalization of the index for each security. Securities-in index window 330 may also include the current price, market capitalization, bid price, ask price, market price, trading volume, 52 week high price and 52 week low price, various ratios (i.e. price-to-earnings and price-to-book), dividend yield, and any other suitable information. The bid price, ask price, market price, market capitalization, trading volume, price-to-earnings, price-to-book information may be updated, for example, in real-time, at periodic intervals, or when updates become available.”)
displaying (reads on “shows the securities in the current index and a percentage of total market capitalization of the index for each security. Securities-in index window 330 may also include the current price, market capitalization, bid price, ask price, market price, trading volume, 52 week high price and 52 week low price, various ratios (i.e. price-to-earnings and price-to-book), dividend yield, and any other suitable information.”) on the display screen a highest bid price and a lowest bid price and an index of the received bids and offers; and (Amaitis: See paragraph [0069]: “Securities-in-index window 330 shows the securities in the current index and a percentage of total market capitalization of the index for each security. Securities-in index window 330 may also include the current price, market capitalization, bid price, ask price, market price, trading volume, 52 week high price and 52 week low price, various ratios (i.e. price-to-earnings and price-to-book), dividend yield, and any other suitable information. The bid price, ask price, market price, market capitalization, trading volume, price-to-earnings, price-to-book information may be updated, for example, in real-time, at periodic intervals, or when updates become available.”)
It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include for receiving the market data at periodic intervals, or when updates become available in the method of Lutnick and Lentz as further taught by Amaitis because it shows the securities information in the current index (Amaitis: [0069]). Further because 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.
Regarding claim 2:
Lutnick discloses the following:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine weather related event within the radius a plurality of times before the given time. (Lutnick: See paragraph [0038]: “an event may take the place of a threshold time. For example, a political race ending or winner of the race being announced may end a binary option that is based on the outcome of such a race. A hurricane or other type of event happening may end a binary option that is based on whether or not such an event will happen in the time.”)
Regarding claim 3:
Lutnick discloses the following:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to enable a user to specify location, time, and event parameters for the weather related event. (Lutnick: See paragraph [0032]: “a binary option may relate to whether or not a hurricane happens in a particular location, city, county, country, etc. (e.g., a binary option may pay to a buyer if a hurricane happens in the time frame and may pay to a seller if the hurricane does not happen in the time frame).”)
Regarding claim 5:
Lutnick discloses the following:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to receive a selection of a closing time for the binary option. (Lutnick: See paragraph [0014]: “a binary option exchange may list new binary options for trading periodically. For example, listing a new binary option may occur every 5 minutes from the opening of trading until one hour prior to the close of trading during each exchange trading day except as otherwise determined or desired. As another example, listing a new binary option may occur hourly. It should be recognized that the frequency of listing is non-limiting and may occur as desired.”)
Regarding claim 6:
Lutnick discloses the following:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to display information related to best available markets for each strike price on the display screen next to corresponding strike line. (Lutnick: See paragraphs [0106]: “The example interface includes a panel 107 through which a trader may view available instruments that relate to the selected underlying instrument. For example, in the illustration, three frames 109 a-c that relate to three separate binary options markets. Information populating these frames may be obtained from an exchange in response to a selection of the underlying instrument, a selection and/or adjustment of a time, and/or a selection and/or adjustment of a strike price.” And [0107] “The frames may be arranged in strike price vertical order (e.g., highest strike price on top, lowest strike price on bottom). A user may use the interface to show different strike prices (e.g., by operating a scroll wheel, by dragging a mouse, by pressing an up or down button, and so on). In response to receiving input from a trader (e.g., an up button press), higher strike prices may be shown (e.g., the next highest X number may be added to the top and the lowest X number may be removed).”)
Regarding claim 7:
Lutnick discloses the following:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to display next best bids and next best offers on the display screen. (Lutnick: See paragraph [0114]: “Such a method includes in response to the first actuation, receiving second information from the binary options exchange. In some embodiments, the second information includes second strike prices, second best bids, and second best offers for a second set of binary options contracts based on the underlying instrument.”)
Regarding claim 8:
Lutnick discloses the following:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to calculate a payout if the at least one processor determines that the weather related event occurred at or near the given time within the radius. (Lutnick: See paragraph [0032]: “As yet another example, a binary option may relate to whether or not a hurricane happens in a particular location, city, county, country, etc. (e.g., a binary option may pay to a buyer if a hurricane happens in the time frame and may pay to a seller if the hurricane does not happen in the time frame).”, and see also [0038])
Regarding claim 9:
Lutnick discloses the following:
The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to calculate the payout if the at least one processor determines that the weather related event occurred within the radius at a specific time after the given time. (Lutnick: See paragraph [0032]: “As yet another example, a binary option may relate to whether or not a hurricane happens in a particular location, city, county, country, etc. (e.g., a binary option may pay to a buyer if a hurricane happens in the time frame and may pay to a seller if the hurricane does not happen in the time frame).”, and see also [0038])
Regarding claim 10: it is similar scope to claim 1, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 11: it is similar scope to claim 2, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 12: it is similar scope to claim 3, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 14: it is similar scope to claim 5, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15: it is similar scope to claim 6, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 16: it is similar scope to claim 7, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 17: it is similar scope to claim 8, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18: it is similar scope to claim 9, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lutnick in view of Lentz in view of Amaitis in further view of Panabaker et al. (hereinafter Panabaker), US Publication Number 2008/0120306 A1.
Regarding claim 4:
Lutnick, Lentz, and Amaitis do not explicitly disclose the following, however Panabaker further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to receive weather related data from at least one measuring device located within the radius in order to determine the weather related event. (Panabaker: See paragraphs [0016]: “One example of a device in a surveyed location includes, for example, a weather measurement station. The weather measurement station may be located at an unattended location such as a rooftop of an office building. Weather reports may be received at the weather measurement station via the federated network and may be reported and used, for example, in pre-flight planning or in-flight routing for aircraft.”, [0027]: “the requestor may request data from a geographical location by providing input on a map. A user interface may be provided on the requestor's device, the user interface including a map. The requestor may select a map of a desired area or location and may interact with the map to request or set the location of the request. In addition, the map may provide additional information relevant to the requestor such as results of a search, serviceable areas, other related areas in the vicinity of or remote from the desired location.”)
It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include for receiving weather related data from at least one measuring device from a geographical location by providing input on a map in the method of Lutnick, Lentz, and Amaitis as further taught by Panabaker because it may provide weather information related areas in the vicinity of or remote from the desired location (Panabaker: [0016] and [0027]). Further because 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.
Regarding claim 13: it is similar scope to claim 4, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon herein but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed in the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG S PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-8349. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 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, Bennett M. Sigmond can be reached on (303)297-4411. 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.
/YONGSIK PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
April 30, 2026
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights