DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on September 22, 2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP 2021-154589 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment filed February 6, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-21 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed February 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
5. Applicant argues that Watanabe et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0379411 A1), hereinafter referred to as Watanabe, only teaches identification areas for detecting current display positions of indicators rather than acquiring placement information indicating a position of the component on the board surface, where the placement information includes: a distance magnification and angle information defined from an origin at the main hand rotation center. The Applicant further asserts that the claim requires a “parametric, origin-based representation (effectively polar-coordinate style) that is used to specify a placement position for compositing a component image onto a base board-surface image”.
Examiner replies that Watanabe teaches in Paragraph 83 identifying a rotation angle for the identification areas AS to AD based on the reference direction facing 12’oclock. Even if Watanabe uses image-recognition areas to detect the current display positions, detecting their positions based on these image-recognition areas still teaches acquiring their placement information. Furthermore, Tsukamoto (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0264747 A1) teaches the distance magnification ratio which teaches placing components at a specific ratio from the distance to an outer shape and distance to the origin. This concept can be combined with Watanabe to teach placing components at a radius from the origin which teaches a parametric, origin-based representation.
Thus, Watanabe in view of Tsukamoto teaches acquiring placement information on the board surface, where the placement information includes: a distance magnification and angle information defined from an origin at the main hand rotation center.
6. Applicant argues that Watanabe does not disclose the compositing-based image generation of arranging the component image on a base board-surface image according to the placement position. The Applicant argues that Watanabe sets several types of positions in advance and determines identification area AD from those preset positions and thus does not teach parametric placement information for compositing. Furthermore, the Applicant argues that Watanabe’s approach relies on pre-prepared pattern images/variants to handle different watch models/appearances rather than dynamically generating a board surface image by combining a base dial image with component images placed according to acquired placement information.
Examiner replies that this argument is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The new argument relies on D’Auria et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0397139 A1) which teaches compositing components onto a base dial image according to placement information.
In addition, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., dynamically generating a board surface image) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
7. Applicant argues that Tsukamoto does not teach the distance magnification and cannot teach a radius as it would require “substantial re-characterization of Tsukamoto that is not taught or suggested by Tsukamoto itself.” The Applicant asserts since Tsukamoto does not teach the outer-shape radius-based distance magnification for component placement, it cannot cure Watanabe’s deficiency.
Examiner replies that Tsukamoto does not limit it’s distance magnification to a square or rectangular display. Tsukamoto teaches a positional relationship between parts on a web page in order to display the parts in a consistent relative positional relationship regardless of the device like a smartphone or personal computer as explained in Paragraph 4 4, 6, and 76. Tsukamoto does not limit the terminal device to be a rectangular device or display. Thus, the concepts in Tsukamoto could be applied to a circular display or device which does not require a substantial re-characterization as Tsukamoto’s concepts of positional relationships does not require a rectangular device or display.
Therefore, Tsukamoto’s distance magnification concept can be applied to Watanabe in order to teach ratios between distance which would be a radius with Watanabe’s circular dial.
8. Applicant argues that there is no motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Watanabe with Tsukamoto.
Examiner replies that it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the screen generation method of generating an image of a timepiece taught by Watanabe with the distance magnification information taught by Tsukamoto in order to maintain a display where the distances between components remain consistent as explained in Tsukamoto in Paragraph 100. Although Watanabe is directed to watches and Tsukamoto is directed to web pages, both are in the same field of analyzing the position of components and displaying the components at their respective positions on a device. Thus, there is motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Watanabe with Tsukamoto.
9. Conclusion: The rejections set in the previous Office Action are shown to have been proper, and the claims are rejected below. New citations and parenthetical remarks can be considered new grounds of rejection and such new grounds of rejection are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Therefore, the present Office Action is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
12. Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0379411 A1), hereinafter referred to as Watanabe, in view of Tsukamoto (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0264747 A1) and D’Auria et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0397139 A1), hereinafter referred to as D’Auria.
13. Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches a screen generation method that causes either an information processing apparatus or an external terminal to generate an image of a timepiece (Paragraph 53, Figure 5 teaches the terminal appliance or external terminal which can display and operate the timepiece), the screen generation method comprising: acquiring component information relating to a component different from a main hand in which a position of at least one portion or displayed information provided on a board surface of a timepiece can change, and placement information indicating a position of the component on the board surface of the timepiece (Paragraph 63 and Figure 4 teaches acquiring information on various components which includes indicators such as the second hand, minute hand, hour hand, and date plate. The date plate, shown in Figure 4 as marker AD, is a component other than a main hand and the determination of the identification areas like AD as shown in Figure 4 teaches acquiring the positional information of the component. The date shown in the date plate also changes, taught in Paragraph 40, which satisfies the limitation that the displayed information provided can change; Paragraph 64 teaches acquiring information regarding the positions of the components detected; Paragraph 84 teaches based on the specified type of timepiece, the apparatus is able to acquire information on the shape and positions of the indicators);
specifying, based on the placement information, a placement position in a case of placing a component image corresponding to the component information on the image of the timepiece (Paragraph 64 teaches the placement information contains placement positions of the components detected in respect to the dial plate; Paragraph 84 teaches determining the position of the indicators based on the information obtained from the specified type of timepiece),
wherein the placement information comprises (Paragraph 63 teaches the main hands rotate with respect to a center of the dial plate. Thus, the center of the dial plate is set as the origin or rotation center; Paragraph 83 teaches identifying a rotation angle for the identification areas AS to AD based on the reference direction facing 12’oclock. AD is a component other than a main hand as taught in Paragraph 63),
(Paragraph 63 teaches the main hands rotate with respect to a center of the dial plate. Thus, the center of the dial plate is set as the origin. Figure 1, the dial plate 26a can be seen as the board surface so the center of the dial plate is the center of the board surface; Paragraph 83 teaches identifying a rotation angle for the identification areas AS to AD based on the predetermined reference direction facing 12’oclock. AD is a component other than a main hand as taught in Paragraph 63);
and generating, based on the placement position, a board surface image for operation used in response to operating the timepiece from the external terminal (Paragraph 82, Figure 11 show a board surface image of a timepiece generated on a device 3 which is not the original timepiece. The device 3 can be used to operate the timepiece as well and is an external terminal separate from the timepiece. The board surface image generated shows the indicators placed according to the acquired positions; Paragraph 53, Figure 5 teaches the terminal appliance or external terminal which can operate the timepiece),
However, Watanabe is not relied upon for the below claim language: to teach the placement information comprises a distance magnification and wherein the distance magnification is a ratio between a first distance from the origin to a radius of an outer shape and a second distance from the origin to a reference position of the component; wherein generating the board surface image for operation comprises arranging the component image on a base board-surface image according to the placement position.
Tsukamoto teaches the placement information comprises a distance magnification and wherein the distance magnification is a ratio between a first distance from the origin to a radius of an outer shape and a second distance from the origin to a reference position of the component (Paragraph 76 teaches acquiring a ratio of distances from the central position CP1 to the two components D and E. One of the components can be considered the component for which the placement information is being obtained and the other component can be considered the outer shape. The ratio is obtained LD1:LE1 is a ratio between the distance from the origin to another component and distance from the origin to the analyzed component. The distance can be considered a radius when Tsukamoto is combined with Watanabe since Watanabe teaches a circular screen for the watches).
Watanabe and Tsukamoto are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of analyzing the position of components and displaying it on a device. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the screen generation method of generating an image of a timepiece taught by Watanabe with the distance magnification information taught by Tsukamoto in order to maintain a display where the distances between components remain consistent (Tsukamoto Paragraph 100).
However, Watanabe and Tsukamoto are not relied upon for the below claim language: wherein generating the board surface image for operation comprises arranging the component image on a base board-surface image according to the placement position.
D’Auria teaches wherein generating the board surface image for operation comprises arranging the component image on a base board-surface image according to the placement position (Paragraph 33 teaches widgets are located and displayed at predefined locations which teaches arranging the component image based on a placement position; Paragraph 49 teaches “combine the generated images with the image of other portions of the watch face … to create an overall image of the watch face”. Paragraph 59 also teaches “the preview of the watch face 710 is generated by combining the previews of individual portions of the watch face (e.g., a preview of widget 716-1, a preview of background 712, etc.) into a single preview image”. This teaches arranging component images on a base board-surface image according to placement position. ).
Watanabe, Tsukamoto, and D’Auria are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of analyzing the position of components and displaying it on a device. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the screen generation method of generating an image of a timepiece taught by Watanabe in view of Tsukamoto with the generation of a board surface image by arranging the component images taught by D’Auria in order to configure a display to show different watch faces that can be managed with another electronic device (D’Auria Paragraph 3).
14. Regarding claim 2, Watanabe in view of Tsukamoto and D’Auria teaches the limitations of claim 1. Watanabe further teaches the screen generation method further comprising: acquiring specifying information that can specify a type of the timepiece (Paragraph 84, Figure 12 teaches showing a method of acquiring the specific type of timepiece by allowing a user to select a specific type from a list of watch types);
and acquiring, based on the acquired specifying information, the component information and the placement information (Paragraph 84 teaches that based on the specified time piece, information on the shape of the indicators and relative positional information between the indicators can be acquired. It also teaches determining the position of the indicators based on the information obtained from the specified type of timepiece).
15. Regarding claim 3, Watanabe in view of Tsukamoto and D’Auria teaches the limitations of claim 1. Watanabe further teaches the screen generation method wherein: the board surface image is generated by placing the component image at a position specified by the (Paragraph 82-83, Figure 11 show a board surface image of a timepiece that has the positions of the components placed which also takes into account the determined distance and angle information; Paragraph 83 teaches identifying a rotation angle for the indicators based on the direction facing 12’oclock which is the predetermined reference direction).
However, Watanabe fails to teach the screen generation method wherein: the board surface image is generated by placing the component image at a position specified by the distance magnification.
Tsukamoto teaches the screen generation method wherein: the board surface image is generated by placing the component image at a position specified by the distance magnification (Paragraph 100 teaches displaying the positions of the components according to their ratios between the distances of the component positions. The ratios are part of the distance magnification information that helps specify a position to place the component at).
Watanabe, Tsukamoto, and D’Auria are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of analyzing position of components and displaying it on another device. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the screen generation method of generating an image of a timepiece taught by Watanabe in view of D’Auria with the distance magnification information taught by Tsukamoto in order to keep the components’ positioning consistent in each display (Tsukamoto Paragraph 100).
16. Regarding claim 4, Watanabe in view of Tsukamoto and D’Auria teaches the limitations of claim 1. Watanabe further teaches the screen generation method wherein the component image includes a common image that is set common to a plurality of types of timepieces, and a dedicated image that is set for each timepiece (Paragraph 84, Figure 12 shows a dedicated image for each type of timepiece. It also teaches that the shape and outline images of the indicators can be obtained based on the specified type which means there is a common image for the indicator component based on the specified timepiece type).
17. Regarding claim 5, Watanabe in view of Tsukamoto and D’Auria teaches the limitations of claim 1. Watanabe further teaches the screen generation method wherein: the component information includes interlocking component information relating to at least one selected from: a position of a part possessed by one other component and indicating information (Paragraph 63 and Figure 4 teaches acquiring information on various components which includes indicators such as the second hand, minute hand, hour hand, and date plate. Since the Applicant has not specified that the other components are not main hands, the main hands can be considered other components which indicate information); a position of a part indicating information in conjunction with a change in a display indicating information (Paragraph 63 and Figure 4 teaches acquiring information on various parts which includes indicators such as the second hand, minute hand, hour hand, and date plate. These indicators indicate information like the time and date. These indicators affect the display information of the timepiece. Thus, they indicate information in conjunction with a change in a display. The date plate, shown in Figure 4 as marker AD, is a component other than a main hand and the determination of the identification areas like AD as shown in Figure 4 teaches acquiring the positional information of the component. The date shown in the date plate also changes, taught in Paragraph 40, which changes the display information);
and the component in a relationship in which a display indicating information changes (Paragraph 40 teaches the date plate changes by changing the date shown. Changing the date shown is changing the display indicating information),
and the other component in conjunction on the board surface image is set based on the interlocking component information (Paragraph 83 teaches the relative positional relation or interlocking component information which is related to the positions of components like main hands and date plate as identified by the AS, AM, AH, and AD regions. The applicant does not specify what the interlocking component information is so the relative positional relation can be considered the interlocking component information. If the date plate is considered the component, the main hands can be considered the other components that can be identified in a shortened time. The applicant does not specify that the other components are not main hands. Thus, the other component can be a main hand).
18. Regarding claim 6, Watanabe in view of Tsukamoto and D’Auria teaches the limitations of claim 5. Watanabe further teaches the screen generation method wherein: the interlocking component information includes rotation ratio information indicating a rotation ratio of the component in an interlocking rotation relationship, and a rotation amount of the component with respect to a predetermined operation amount in the board surface image is set based on the rotation ratio (Paragraph 39 teaches the date plate component has a rotation amount per one time set which can be considered the rotation ratio information; Paragraph 69-70 teaches the positions of the indicators, like 26e which is the date plate, rotate according to the correction information. The applicant has not specified what the predetermined operation amount is so under broadest reasonable interpretation, it can be interpreted to be the amount in the correction information. The rotation will be rotated according to the rotation ratio taught in Paragraph 39).
19. Regarding claim 7, claim 7 is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim (Watanabe Paragraph 49, Figure 3 teaches a storage unit 37 which functions as a memory that contains computer programs to be executed by the controller 35. The controller 35 can be considered the processing unit which executes instructions from memory) of method claim 1 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 1.
20. Regarding claim 8, Watanabe in view of Tsukamoto and D’Auria teaches the limitations of claim 7. Claim 8 is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim of method claim 2 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 2.
21. Regarding claim 9, Watanabe in view of Tsukamoto and D’Auria teaches the limitations of claim 7. Claim 9 is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim of method claim 3 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 3.
22. Regarding claim 10, Watanabe in view of Tsukamoto and D’Auria teaches the limitations of claim 7. Claim 10 is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim of method claim 4 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 4.
23. Regarding claim 11, Watanabe in view of Tsukamoto and D’Auria teaches the limitations of claim 7. Claim 11 is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim of method claim 5 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 5.
24. Regarding claim 12, Watanabe in view of Tsukamoto and D’Auria teaches the limitations of claim 11. Claim 12 is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim of method claim 6 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 6.
25. Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is the information processing apparatus claim (Watanabe Paragraph 42, Figure 3 shows a terminal device 3 which acts as an information processing apparatus; Paragraph 47 and 49, Figure 3 teach a controller 35 that executes programs stored in the storage unit 37) of method claim 1 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 1.
26. Regarding claim 14, Watanabe in view of Tsukamoto and D’Auria teaches the limitations of claim 13. Claim 14 is the information processing apparatus claim of method claim 2 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 2.
27. Regarding claim 15, Watanabe in view of Tsukamoto and D’Auria teaches the limitations of claim 13. Claim 15 is the information processing apparatus claim of method claim 3 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 3.
28. Regarding claim 16, Watanabe in view of Tsukamoto and D’Auria teaches the limitations of claim 13. Claim 16 is the information processing apparatus claim of method claim 4 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 4.
29. Regarding claim 17, Watanabe in view of Tsukamoto and D’Auria teaches the limitations of claim 13. Claim 17 is the information processing apparatus claim of method claim 5 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 5.
30. Regarding claim 18, Watanabe in view of Tsukamoto and D’Auria teaches the limitations of claim 17. Claim 18 is the information processing apparatus claim of method claim 6 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 6.
31. Regarding claim 19, Watanabe in view of Tsukamoto and D’Auria teaches the limitations of claim 1. Watanabe further teaches the screen generation method further comprising acquiring the component information from a database of a management server (Paragraph 84, Figure 12 shows a dedicated image for each type of timepiece. It also teaches that the shape and outline images of the indicators can be obtained based on the specified type which can be considered component information; Paragraph 85 teaches information regarding the indicators, which is component information, can be retrieved from the storage in an external server. The external server can be considered the management server with a database),
generating, based on the placement information, the board surface image including the component image at the position indicated by the placement information (Paragraph 82-83, Figure 11 show a board surface image of a timepiece that has the positions of the components placed based on the placement information);
and transmitting the board surface image to the device other than the timepiece for display of the board surface image having the component image at the position indicated by the placement information (Paragraph 43 teaches the imaging unit transmits the image of the dial plate and its indicators to the controller through an image signal. The controller is in the terminal appliance which is a device other than the timepiece; Paragraph 82-83, Figure 11 show a board surface image of a timepiece that has the positions of the components placed based on the placement information).
32. Regarding claim 20, Watanabe in view of Tsukamoto and D’Auria teaches the limitations of claim 7. Claim 20 is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim of claim 19 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 19.
33. Regarding claim 21, Watanabe in view of Tsukamoto and D’Auria teaches the limitations of claim 13. Claim 21 is the information apparatus of claim 19 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 19.
Conclusion
34. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE Y AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-0672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at (571)272-2330. 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.
/CHRISTINE YERA AHN/Examiner, Art Unit 2615
/ALICIA M HARRINGTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2615