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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 remain pending, and are rejected.
Claims 6-10 have been added, and are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 8/19/2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for at least the following rationale:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 8/19/2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive.
Notably, on pages 6-7 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the claims recite subject matter that is not directed to an abstract idea, is integrated into a practical application, and adds significantly more than the alleged abstract idea by providing a technical improvement. The arguments claim an alleged improvement by customizing the interior by the user in advance via an application. On pages 7-8, the Applicant further argues displaying the layout on an arrangement screen and operating and receiving of a reserve button, and as such, recite significantly more than the abstract idea when viewed as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are still directed to the user creating and changing an interior design, which is an abstract idea as certain methods of organizing human activity, as a commercial interaction (selecting options of a product), and any additional element is recited with a very high level of generalization, and as a mental process. While the claims may recite displaying the layout on a screen of a user terminal and an application, these elements are recited very generally, and do not recite any particular functionality or improvement other than being recited in a generic manner such that the abstract idea is performed on a computing device as opposed to in-person or on pen and paper. The various screens merely display data, and the reserve or end button merely confirms that the user is finished their process. These elements do not do anything but generic interface activities such that the abstract idea is connected to a computing environment. The application is not recited with any particularity or functionality other than the various steps of the abstract area performed via the application without any further detail. It is evident that the additional elements only provide a general link to a computing environment such that the abstract idea is performed through a computing device, but the whole of the claims are directed to the abstract idea of designing an interior layout.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained below.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 8/19/2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered, but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-10 recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is an article of manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-10 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Claim 1 sets forth the following limitations reciting the abstract idea of selecting a customized layout for a vehicle:
creating an interior design for a vehicle including a layout of a component to be disposed in a cabin space in the vehicle, the interior of the cabin space in the vehicle being customized by the user in advance;
allowing a user who wants to use the vehicle to select the layout of the component to be disposed in the cabin space in the vehicle, other than a seat for driving;
receiving a selection of the layout of the component and displaying the layout of the component in the cabin space that has been decided upon by the user and in accordance with the received selection;
determining that the creation of the interior design for the vehicle is finished in response to:
displaying an arrangement screen based on the created interior design for the vehicle including the layout of the component;
receiving changes to the layout of the component;
adjusting the layout in accordance with the received changes.
The recited limitations above set forth the process for selecting a customized layout for a vehicle. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal transactions (e.g. agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, etc.). The claims are directed to selecting a customized layout for a vehicle, which is an advertising and marketing activity. Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that claim 1 recites additional elements, such as:
via an application comprising instructions for executing on a user terminal;
on a display unit;
displaying a reserve button or an end button on a confirmation screen;
operating the reserve button or the end button on the confirmation screen;
receiving a selection of the operation of the reserve or the end button on the confirmation screen;
an arrangement screen;
Taken individually and as a whole, claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement a judicial exception with a particular machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While the claims recite a display unit, the display unit is recited with a very high level of generality, merely being recited to display information of the abstract idea. Specification paragraph [0028] only gives an example of the display unit, such as a liquid crystal display, and employing a touch panel system, without any further detail. Furthermore, the various screens are not disclosed with any particularity except to input and output some user interaction of the abstract idea. The screens do not provide a particular change or improvement to interface technology. As such, it is evident that the display unit is any generic displaying device, and does not function in any particular manner. The display unit merely provides a general link to a computing environment. The reserve or end button is also recited very generally, merely sending a signal for the user to reserve a vehicle (specification: [0044]). It is evident that the button is any generic interface button that provides a signal such that the abstract idea is performed on a computing device.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Returning to claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in claim 1 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 2-10 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1, such as by further defining the algorithm of selecting a customized layout for a vehicle, and do not recite any further additional elements. Thus, each of claims 2-10 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-10 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 2-10 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 1. Further additional elements are also acknowledged; however, the additional elements of claims 2-10 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 2-10 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-10 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 1. Thus, dependent claims 2-10 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Vardharajan (US 20210046888 A1) in view of Oak (US 20210279786 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Vardharajan discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing an information processing program by a computer to perform a process, the process comprising:
creating, via an application comprising instructions for execution on a user terminal, an interior design for a vehicle including a layout of a component to be disposed in a cabin space in the vehicle, the interior of the cabin space in the vehicle being customized by the user in advance; Vardharajan discloses the user adjusting and creating activity profiles of the cabin configuration (Vardharajan: [0037]; see also: [0066]), the profile activity being made and received before applying the profile to a vehicle (in advance) (Vardharajan: [0143]; see also: Fig. 9, #950,955). The activities are performed on an application on the user device (Vardharajan: [0005]; see also: [0054]; [0066]).
allowing a user who wants to use the vehicle to select the layout of the component to be disposed in the cabin space in the vehicle, other than a seat for driving; Vardharajan discloses the user selecting an activity profile for a vehicle they are trying to rent, the activity profile controlling a cabin configuration of a vehicle (Vardharajan: [0036]; [0027]; see also: [0003]; [0093]; [0107]; [0140]).
receiving, via the application, a selection of the layout of the component and displaying on a display unit the layout of the component in the cabin space that has been decided upon by the user. Vardharajan discloses displaying indication on a monitor of the selected activity profile (Vardharajan: [0047]; see also: [0005]; [0030]; [0103]; [0108]; [0130]; Fig. 8).
Vardharajan does not explicitly teach the process comprising:
determining that the creation of the interior design for the vehicle is finished in response to:
displaying an arrangement screen based on the created interior design for the vehicle including the layout of the component;
receiving changes to the layout of the component;
adjusting the layout in accordance with the received changes.
Notably, however, Vardharajan does disclose the user confirming adjustments made to the activity profiles, cabin characteristics, and combinations (Vardharajan: [0156]).
To that accord, Oak does teach the process comprising:
determining that the creation of the interior design for the vehicle is finished in response to: Oak teaches a save button to save an arrangement or customized configuration (Oak: [0091]).
displaying an arrangement screen based on the created design including the layout of the component; Oak teaches an interface to display the custom arrangement or configuration of the user (Oak: [0091]).
receiving changes to the layout of the component; Oak teaches an edit option to change or customize a saved look (Oak: [0093]; see also: [0099]).
adjusting the layout in accordance with the received changes. Oak teaches the edit option to make customizations displayed on the interface (Oak: [0093]; see also: [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Vardharajan disclosing the process of custom activity profiles to customize the interior design of a vehicle with the interface displaying the layout and being able to save the layout as taught by Oak. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to visualize and create a desired configuration (Oak: [0002]). While Oak discloses a process for customizing a look, both Vardharajan and Oak are directed to the customization of a product through the use of a computing device, and are analogous art.
Regarding Claim 2: Vardharajan in view of Oak discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Vardharajan further discloses receiving at least one change made by the user to at least one of the layout, dimensions, or color of the component disposed in the cabin space. Examiner notes that Applicant recites at least one of in the claim. Vardharajan discloses user settings to adjust the orientations of components in the cabin (Vardharajan: [0040]; see also: [0031-0032]; [0140]).
Regarding Claim 3: Vardharajan in view of Oak discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Vardharajan further discloses acquiring user information relating to the user, and recommending a layout of the component for the user, based on the user information that is acquired. Vardharajan discloses receiving authentication information from the user, including profile setting privileges and desired activity profiles, and suggesting activity profiles that are available similar to the desired activity profile (Vardharajan: [0075]; [0079]; see also: [0049]; [0142]).
Regarding Claim 4: Vardharajan in view of Oak discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Vardharajan further discloses displaying on the display unit vehicle information relating to a driving performance of the vehicle, in a case in which the component has been decided by the user is disposed in the cabin space. Vardharajan in view of Oak discloses a display outputting feedback for operational characteristics and activity profile, including activity profiles selected for driving performance, such as vehicle efficiency (Vardharajan: [0028]; [0168]).
Regarding Claim 5: Vardharajan in view of Oak discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Vardharajan further discloses receiving a reservation to use the vehicle in which the component has been decided by the user is disposed in the cabin space. Vardharajan discloses providing the profile and selecting an activity profile to rent the vehicle from the dealership (Vardharajan: [0093]; see also: [0045-0046]; [0054]; [0091]).
Regarding Claim 6: Vardharajan in view of Oak discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Vardharajan further discloses wherein the vehicle is a two-seat car excluding rear seats. Vardharajan discloses different type of vehicles, including economy cars, vans, etc. (Vardharajan: [0038]).
Examiner Note:
Although Vardharajan in view of Oak does not explicitly disclose a two-seat car excluding rear seats, Varadharajan does disclose various types of vehicles that are applicable, including various cars. Such modification of a two-seat car excluding rear seats would have been an obvious matter of design choice in light of the system already disclosed in the combination.
Such modification would not have otherwise affected the invention of the combination of Vardharajan and Oak, and would have merely represented one of numerous types of information that the skilled artisan would have found obvious for the purposes already discloses in the invention. Notably, Applicant has also failed to persuasively demonstrate the criticality of the claimed type of data.
Regarding Claim 7: Vardharajan in view of Oak discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Vardharajan further discloses wherein the component includes a sofa and a table disposed in the cabin space rearwards of a driver seat. Vardharajan discloses desks and couches that may be in the cabin of the vehicle (Vardharajan: [0031]; [0126]; see also: [0039]; [0099]; Fig. 3C, #305,310).
Regarding Claim 8: Vardharajan in view of Oak discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Vardharajan further discloses wherein the component is detachably anchored to the vehicle. Vardharajan discloses the objects utilized within the cabin attached in set configurations, stowed, away, or attached outside the vehicle (Vardharajan: [0122]).
Regarding Claim 10: Vardharajan in view of Oak discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Vardharajan further discloses recommending the layout for the component based on the user information and identifying another user based on the user information. Vardharajan discloses suggesting a particular activity profile for the user based on the user input (Vardharajan: [0049]; see also: [0142]), and based on not affecting ride experience characteristics of other users (Vardharajan: [0006]; see also: [0037]; [0084]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Vardharajan (US 20210046888 A1) and Oak (US 20210279786 A1), in view of Heit (US 20190155291 A1).
Regarding Claim 9: The combination of Vardharajan and Heit discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach determining and displaying, on the display unit, a fuel consumption, an acceleration performance, and a braking performance based on the created interior design and the component being disposed in the cabin space. Notably, however, Vardharajan does disclose adjustments made to the activity profiles, cabin characteristics, and combinations (Vardharajan: [0156]), and ECUs that can track performance of the vehicle (Vardharajan: [0030]; [0002]).
To that accord Heit does teach determining and displaying, on the display unit, a fuel consumption, an acceleration performance, and a braking performance based on the created interior design and the component being disposed in the cabin space. Heit teaches evaluating vehicle performance (Heit: [0019]; see also: [0052]), including fuel consumption and acceleration (Heit: [0031]; see also: [0052]) and brake performance (Heit: [0019]; see also: [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Vardharajan and Oak disclosing the process of custom activity profiles to customize the interior design of a vehicle with the display of vehicle performance including fuel consumption, and acceleration and brake performance as taught by Heit. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to test the quality and reliability of the configuration (Heit: [0003]).
Conclusion
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 TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 - 5:00.
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, Kelly Campen can be reached at 571-272-6740. 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.
/T.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688