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
Due to communications filed 7/24/25, the following is a non-final first office action. Due to a pre-liminary amendment filed 7/24/25, claims 1-19 are amended. Claims 1-19 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C, 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (l.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In addition, the claims recite a judicial exception. Independent claims 1 and 10 as a whole recites the abstract idea of collecting information, including weather forecast data, fishing location data, calendar time data, and weather-condition data, analyzing the data to identify fishing locations corresponding to desired weather conditions and a desired fishing time, and providing selectable fishing locations to a user. Such activities constitute mental processes that can be practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and therefore fall into the mental processes grouping. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer/computer network does not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, independent claim 1 and 10 are not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of a first system configured to provide weather forecast data, a second system configured to store predefined fishing location and associated information, and a processor-based device configured to obtain and retrieve the information, merely perform generic computer functions of receiving, storing, accessing and retrieving data and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology and merely uses generic computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea.
Finally, the additional elements of independent claims 1 and 10, considered individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry. Accordingly the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception and is therefore directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19 are also directed to same grouping of mental processes. The additional elements of the system in claims 2-10; display in claims 2; fishing equipment in claim 3; fishing equipment in claim 4; fishing equipment in claim 5; third system and fishing equipment in claim 7; processor based device, supplies in claim 8; booking system in claim 9; method of claims 11-19; fishing equipment in claim 13; processor-based device and fishing equipment in claim 14; processor based device in claim 15; third system in claim 16; second system and processor-based device in claim 17; booking system, food serving facility and lodging facility in claim 18 and non-transitory computer program product and processor device in claim 19 are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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) 1-2, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hlatky et al (US 9298978 B1), and further in view of NIU et al (US 20230358549 A1).
As per claim 1, Hlatky et al discloses:
a processor-based device, ((22) FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary configuration of analysis device 150. Analysis device 150 can include a processor 1; (23) In some instances, the processor is a general-purpose processing device that is configured, by the instructions, to become a special-purpose processing device. (24) Generally speaking, client devices 120, 130, and/or 140 as well as devices 160 and/or 170 can also include hardware such as the aforementioned memory, processor, etc.);
a first system configured to provide weather forecast data, ((14) Generally speaking, the analysis device can obtain fishing or hunting data, e.g., from various client devices and/or servers having information such as weather data);
a second system configured to store predefined fishing locations, wherein each predefined location is associated with at least calendar time data and corresponding weather conditions, ((20) For example, rules can be stored for specific locations, e.g., the analysis device can store data identifying the St. Joe River as well as recommendations for fishing the St. Joe River at a particular time of year, under particular weather/water conditions, times of day, etc; (134) Location information can include data such as the relative catch report frequency of different species of fish at the location, water conditions at the location, weather conditions at the location, predefined classifications of the location); (57)...the third client device may periodically provide its location to the analysis device, and the analysis device can predict fishing conditions in the vicinity of the third client device...For example, a user arriving in St. Maries, Id. in late August might receive a notification like “Try fishing the headwaters of the St. Joe with a terrestrial today or tomorrow, the cutthroat fishing should be fantastic.” Some recommendations may also recommend a particular time to fish, e.g., “try fishing Wednesday evening on the headwaters of the St. Joe with a terrestrial.”; (92) Also note that menus can be seasonal, based on either rules or catches. For example, a rule may be defined to populate the species reporting menu for a river in Alaska with a first species of salmon during the first two weeks of June, a second species of salmon for the last two weeks of June, and so on).
wherein, the processor device is configured to contact the first system to obtain weather data for a fishing time desired by the user, ((20) As mentioned above, the recommendations can also be directly rule-based. For example, rules can be stored for specific locations, e.g., the analysis device can store data identifying the St. Joe River as well as recommendations for fishing the St. Joe River at a particular time of year, under particular weather/water conditions, times of day, etc; ((55) As another example, the user could query the analysis engine for how good the fishing is likely to be at times and/or locations identified by the user. For example, the analysis engine can predict the fishing quality, e.g., for each day of the next week, possibly using weather forecasts etc. to populate various inputs to the analysis engine); and
Hlatky et al does not disclose the following, however, NIU et al (US 20230358549 A1) discloses:
to access the second system to retrieve, based on the weather data obtained and the desired fishing time, one or more selectable fishing locations for the user, (NIU et al: [0006] According to one aspect of the present disclosure, a fishing navigation method is provided, which is applied to a target fishing area, where the target fishing area includes at least one fishing spot and is obtained based on a selection of a user; [0007] At least one fishing plan corresponding to the target fishing area is acquired, where each of the at least one fishing plan includes a location of each of at least one target fishing spot and a fishing time period corresponding to each of the at least one target fishing spot, where the at least one target fishing spot is selected from the at least one fishing spot of the target fishing area. [0055] In some embodiments, the fishing navigation apparatus that performs the fishing navigation method may have clock, positioning, and networking functions and may acquire the current weather information through a network according to a current location and time. [0057] In S1212, first candidate fishing areas are determined from at least one fishing area according to the current weather information; [0058] The first candidate fishing areas are fishing areas recommended to a user according to the current weather information. The user may select the target fishing area from the first candidate fishing areas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by NIU et al in the systems of Hlatky et al, 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, Hlatky et al does not disclose the following, however, NIU et al (US 20230358549 A1) discloses:
wherein it further comprises further comprising a display (30)-for displaying to the user the one or more selectable fishing locations retrieved, (NIU et al [0061] In an embodiment, the first candidate fishing areas may be sorted according to the priorities of the weather and displayed on a display device of a fishing system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by NIU et al in the systems of Hlatky et al, 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 10, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed in independent claim 1 and is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 11:
further comprising displaying to the user the one or more selectable fishing locations retrieved.
Please see the rejection of claim 2.
Claim(s) 3-5, 12-14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hlatky et al (US 9298978 B1), and further in view of NIU et al (US 20230358549 A1), and further in view of Bailey (US 20150058323 A1).
As per claim 3, Hlatky et al does not disclose:
wherein the second system is further configured to provide for the user at least one list of suitable fishing equipment associated to one or more of the selectable fishing locations retrieved by the user.
However, Bailey (US 20150058323 A1) discloses:
([0047] At block 440, method 400 may display the suggestions. FIGS. 2A-2D illustrate examples of displays that may be created using method 400. The suggestions may be displayed on a computer system 700, marine electronics device 800, smart phone, or any other display device. The displayed suggestions may include one or more suggested locations for a fisherman to fish. For example, the suggestions may be displayed by shading the suggested areas on a map. In another example, the suggestions may be displayed by overlaying numbers on a map. In yet another example, the suggestions may be displayed by overlaying icons or text on the map. The displayed suggestions may include suggested equipment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Bailey in the systems of Hlatky et al, 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 4, Hlatky et al does not disclose:
wherein the second system (20) is configured to automatically provide for the user at least one list of suitable fishing equipment associated to one or more of the selectable fishing locations retrieved by the user.
However, Bailey (US 20150058323 A1) discloses: ([0047] At block 440, method 400 may display the suggestions. FIGS. 2A-2D illustrate examples of displays that may be created using method 400. The suggestions may be displayed on a computer system 700, marine electronics device 800, smart phone, or any other display device. The displayed suggestions may include one or more suggested locations for a fisherman to fish. For example, the suggestions may be displayed by shading the suggested areas on a map. In another example, the suggestions may be displayed by overlaying numbers on a map. In yet another example, the suggestions may be displayed by overlaying icons or text on the map. The displayed suggestions may include suggested equipment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Bailey in the systems of Hlatky et al, 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 4, Hlatky et al does not disclose:
wherein the processor-based device is further configured to contact the second system to thereby obtain for the user at least one list of suitable fishing equipment associated to one or more of the selectable fishing locations retrieved by the user.
However, Bailey (US 20150058323 A1) discloses: ([0047] At block 440, method 400 may display the suggestions. FIGS. 2A-2D illustrate examples of displays that may be created using method 400. The suggestions may be displayed on a computer system 700, marine electronics device 800, smart phone, or any other display device. The displayed suggestions may include one or more suggested locations for a fisherman to fish. For example, the suggestions may be displayed by shading the suggested areas on a map. In another example, the suggestions may be displayed by overlaying numbers on a map. In yet another example, the suggestions may be displayed by overlaying icons or text on the map. The displayed suggestions may include suggested equipment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Bailey in the systems of Hlatky et al, 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 8, Hlatky et al does not disclose:
wherein at least one of the second system (10) and the processor-based device(1 is further configured
to provide for the user at least one list of suggested supplies based on at least one of: the desired
fishing time; the weather data retrieved; the one or more fishing locations retrieved.
However, Bailey (US 20150058323 A1) discloses [0047] At block 440, method 400 may display the suggestions. FIGS. 2A-2D illustrate examples of displays that may be created using method 400...The displayed suggestions may include one or more suggested locations for a fisherman to fish...The displayed suggestions may include suggested equipment, suggested weather conditions, suggested times, suggested dates, suggested tidal conditions and the like.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Bailey in the systems of Hlatky et al, 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 12:
providing for the user, via the second system, at least one list of suitable fishing equipment associated to one or more of the selectable fishing locations retrieved by the user.
Please see the rejection of claim 3.
As per claim 13:
wherein the second system automatically provides for the user the at least one list of suitable fishing equipment associated to one or more of the selectable fishing locations retrieved by the user.
Please see the rejection of claim 4.
As per claim 14:
wherein the processor-based device is further configured to contact the second system (20) to thereby obtain for the user the at least one list of suitable fishing equipment associated to one or more of the selectable fishing locations retrieved by the user.
Please see the rejection of claim 5.
As per claim 17:
Further comprising providing for the user, via at least one of the second system and the processor-
based device, at least one list of suggested supplies based on at least one of: the desired fishing
time; the weather data retrieved; the one or more fishing locations retrieved.
Please see the rejection of claim 8.
Claim(s) 6-7, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hlatky et al (US 9298978 B1), and further in view of NIU et al (US 20230358549 A1), and further in view of YURA (JP 2004290025 A).
As per claim 6, Hlatky et al does not disclose:
wherein the processor-based device is further configured to contact one or more on-line equipment vendors to thereby obtain proposed fishing equipment lists.
However, YURA discloses: ([0093] <Competition information provision processing> After the end of the fishing competition, the competition information providing means 50 calculates the ranking using the effective total length data, refers to the fishing result information table together with the competition result, and stores information such as fishing equipment information and lure action in the WEB content DB 66. And provide it to the user members; Shows boat rental in [0111] and therefore obvious that rental vendors are involved).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by YURA in the systems of Hlatky et al, 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 7, Hlatky et al does not disclose:
further comprising a third system configured to provide for the user at least a list of fishing equipment available for purchase or rent, ([0111] (Content about resources available to anglers) Information on resources that can be used by anglers includes fishing spot information, boat rental information, crew recruiting information, and the like. On the fishing spot information screen, domestic and overseas regions and points can be selected, and posting and browsing of fishing spot information of the selected place can be performed. On the boat rental information screen, domestic and overseas regions and points can be selected, and boat rental information on the marina at the selected location can be viewed and rental can be requested).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by YURA in the systems of Hlatky et al, 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 15:
further comprising contacting via the processor-based device one or more on-line equipment vendors to thereby obtain for the user proposed fishing equipment lists.
Please see the rejection of claim 6.
As per claim 16:
further comprising providing for the user, via a third system, at least a list of fishing equipment available for purchase or rent.
Please see the rejection of claim 7.
Claim(s) 9, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hlatky et al (US 9298978 B1), and further in view of NIU et al (US 20230358549 A1), and further in view of (KR 102637036 B1).
As per claim 9, Hlatky et al does not disclose:
further comprising at least one booking system for the user to book one or more of a food serving
facility and/or a lodging facility at least one selected fishing location of the one or more selectable
fishing locations.
However, (KR 102637036 B1) discloses: (The fishing activity authentication server 110 provides additional information related to fishing activities, such as weather information, tide information, tournament information, recommended fishing location information, fishing guide information, fishing equipment store information, fishing boat information, and lodging information, to the user terminal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by (KR 102637036 B1) in the systems of Hlatky et al, 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 18:
further comprising booking via a booking system one or more of a food serving facility and/or a
lodging facility at least one selected fishing location of the one or more selectable fishing locations.
Please see the rejection of claim 9.
As per claim 19, please see the rejection for claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached on 571-270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
June 22, 2026
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights