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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2020-201275, filed on 12/03/2020.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claim 18, Applicant recites the limitation, “switching display is performed…,” and “continuous display is performed…” (emphasis added) Examiner found that these limitations1 are not supportive in light of specification.
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 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and mathematical concepts and calculations). The claim(s) recite(s) “a display method executed in a beverage production device, the method comprising: a first image including a plurality of images explaining respective production steps of the beverage, and a second image including one image indicating information regarding a raw material of the beverage or information regarding a recipe of the beverage, in the display control step, when a selection of the first image is received in the receiving step, switching display is performed by switching to the first image and displaying the first image on the display device according to the progress of the production of the beverage, and when a selection of the second image is received in the receiving step, continuous display is performed by continuously displaying the second image on the display device even when the production step of the beverage progress, and by receiving the selection in the receiving step during the production of the beverage in the production step, switching is enabled between the switching display of the first image and the continuous display of the second image.” (emphasis added) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory). See Alice/Mayo test under MPEP § 2106, II. ESTABLISH BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF CLAIM AS A WHOLE.2
STEP 1: STATUTORY CATEGORY DETERMINATION
Conclusion: The claim recites a process within the statutory category of 35 U.S.C. § 101(a).
Analysis:
The claim is directed to “a method” with recited steps: “a production step, a receiving step, and a display control step.”
A method claim constitutes a process, which is explicitly enumerated in § 101.
The claim does not recite a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter as the primary subject matter.
Result: Claim satisfies the statutory category requirement and proceeds to Step 2A.
STEP 2A, PRONG 1: IDENTIFY JUDICIAL EXCEPTION(S)
Conclusion: The claim recites a judicial exception under the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts and potentially mental processes.
Offending Clauses:
“a first image including a plurality of images explaining respective production steps of the beverage, and a second image including one image indicating information regarding a raw material of the beverage or information regarding a recipe of the beverage.”
This recites a user interface mechanism, which is a fundamentally insignificant extra-solution activity—specifically, choosing whether to display a changing series of images (tied to beverage production progress) or a single continuous image based on a user’s selection.
“in the display control step, when a selection of the first image is received in the receiving step, switching display is performed by switching to the first image and displaying the first image on the display device according to the progress of the production of the beverage, and when a selection of the second image is received in the receiving step, continuous display is performed by continuously displaying the second image on the display device even when the production step of the beverage progress, and by receiving the selection in the receiving step during the production of the beverage in the production step, switching is enabled between the switching display of the first image and the continuous display of the second image.”
The claim is directed to the presentation of information, data manipulation, and methods of organizing human activity (specifically, user interface choices regarding how to present operational progress to user).
Under USPTO guidance, claims that merely collect, analyze, or display data/information without improving how a computer functions are considered abstract ideas. Deciding what to display (a single image vs. a sequence of images) based on user input is a cognitive or human-to-computer interface convention rather than a technological improvement.
STEP 2A, PRONG 2: INTEGRATION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
Conclusion: The claim FAILS to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Analysis:
To satisfy Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim must demonstrate that the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application by:
Improving a technology or technological process (e.g., computer functioning, camera functionality);
Applying the exception to a particular machine or apparatus;
Transforming an article into a different state or thing; or
Other meaningful limitations beyond merely applying the exception.
Per 2019 PEG § II.B.2(a):
“A claim that recites a judicial exception may still be directed to a patent-eligible application of that exception if the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.”
Assessment:
1. No Claimed Technological Improvement
The claim does not recite:
Any hardware-specific implementation or architectural innovation
The specification (¶4) acknowledges the problem: “tedious to wait for a beverage production device,” (emphasis added) but the claim does not recite how the present method improves.
2. No Particular Machine or Apparatus
The claim recites:
“a receiving unit, a display control unit, a display device, and a production unit” – a generic field-of-use limitation, not a particular machine
Per Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), and the PEG, data manipulation alone does not constitute a practical application.
4. Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
The steps recited are:
Receiving a selection
Switching display/continuous display
These steps are routine, conventional, and insignificant in the context of standard data processing of GUI operations. They represent the ordinary operation of a user interface without additional technological constraints or improvements.
Per 2019 PEG § II.B.2(b):
“Mere instructions to apply the exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, or field-of-use limitations do not suffice.”
The claim provides “mere instructions” to apply via generic hardware—it does not recite how this application improves camera calibration technology or solves a technological problem beyond the abstract mathematical operations.
5. Field-of-Use Limitation
The phrase “beverage method” is a field-of-use limitation—it merely restricts the insignificant extra-solution activity to a particular industry or application domain. Per the PEG, field-of-use limitations alone do not integrate an exception into a practical application.
Conclusion on Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim does not integrate the recited insignificant activity into a practical application. The claim recites generic steps to apply well-known mathematical operations without demonstrating:
A specific technological improvement
A particular machine or apparatus
A transformation of a physical article
Meaningful limitations beyond applying the exception
STEP 2B: SIGNIFICANTLY MORE / WELL-UNDERSTOOD, ROUTINE, CONVENTIONAL (WURC)
Conclusion: The additional claim elements are NOT “significantly more” than the judicial exception because they consist of well-understood, routine, and convention (WURC) elements under Berkheimer standards.
Analysis:
Per 2019 PEG § II.B.3:
“If a claim recites a judicial exception and does not integrate the exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2, then determine whether the additional elements in the claim provide ‘significantly more’ than the exception itself. The additional elements must be more than well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the relevant field.”
WURC Analysis:
1. “a first image including a plurality of images explaining respective production steps of the beverage, and a second image including one image indicating information regarding a raw material of the beverage or information regarding a recipe of the beverage.”
Evidence from Specification: The specification (¶182 and ¶204) explains displaying progressive informational content that updates according to the steps of a production process (e.g., step-by-step beverage creation instructions); and displaying static informational content (e.g., a recipe creator profile, barista information, or coffee bean plantation details) displayed via a screen.
The mechanism of switching between these views based on a user selection3 relies entirely on well-understood, routine, and conventional graphical user interface (GUI) interactions. Using tabs, buttons, or selection fields to toggle between different display states is a standard, ubiquitous features of computer-implemented interfaces.
Berkheimer Support: The underlying functions of presenting step-by-step progress updates versus static background information (e.g., origin details, supplier notes, or profiles) are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in data presentation, human-computer interaction, and consumer appliance. Providing a user with the option to view either procedural steps or supplementary background is a standard informational paradigm long practiced in digital menus, kiosks, and software applications.
2. “when a selection of the first image is received in the receiving step, switching display is performed by switching to the first image and displaying the first image on the display device according to the progress of the production of the beverage, and when a selection of the second image is received in the receiving step, continuous display is performed by continuously displaying the second image on the display device even when the production step of the beverage progress, and by receiving the selection in the receiving step during the production of the beverage in the production step, switching is enabled between the switching display of the first image and the continuous display of the second image.”
This method heavily focuses on a UI state-switching mechanism: letting a user dynamically toggle during an ongoing process between a progress-tracking display and a persistent, static display.
Limiting this display-switching logic to the context of a “beverage production unit” during the “production of the beverage” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. Restricting an abstract idea to a specific field of use (beverage making) does not confer patent eligibility.
Berkheimer Support: Applicant should support for this limitation that is established pursuant to MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(I). Per Applicant’s Spec. ¶¶182 and 204, he does not add elements that are significantly more than routine, conventional GUI operations applied in a standard context, i.e., fails to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
No factual support is provided in the specification to establish that any of these elements are non-routine or non-conventional. The specification describes standard implementations of known techniques without disclosing novel modifications, unexpected results, or technological improvements.
Therefore, the additional elements do NOT amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
CONCLUSION
Claim 18 is INELIGIBLE under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Summary:
Step
Finding
Rationale
Step 1
✓ Eligible Category
Step 2A, Prong 1
✗ Recites Exception
Step 2A, Prong 2
✗ Not Integrated
Step 2B
✗ Not “Significantly More”
Overall Eligibility
INELIGIBLE
In re claims 19 and 20, the claimed limitations, e.g., “when a selection of the first image is received during the continuous display of the second image, the display control step switches the display from the second image to an image included in the first image corresponding to the production step currently in progress,” and “wherein the receiving step receives a selection of either the first image or the second image in response to selection of a tab displayed on the display device during production of the beverage,” are interpreted in the same way as presented in the aforementioned assessment.
Therefore, claims 19 and 20 are also rejected under § 101.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 18–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Stork gennant Wersborg (U.S. 12,232,645 B2) in view of Shuya (JP 2009266023 A).
Regarding claim 18, Stork gennant Wersborg discloses a display method executed in a beverage production device, the method comprising:
a production step of producing a beverage; (Per Fig. 1, Stork gennant Wersborg’s apparatus 100 comprises a sensor 1815 to determine a beverage production environment. Stork gennant Wersborg col. 1 line 60 – col. 3 line 14. [a] monitoring system 150 for an apparatus 100 for making beverages according to an embodiment may comprise a sensor unit 1810 having at least one sensor 1815 to determine current sensor data of a beverage production environment;)
a receiving step of receiving from a user a selection of an image to be displayed during the production of the beverage in the production step; and (Per Fig. 1, Stork gennant Wersborg’s sensor unit 1810 comprises a camera 160 to collect a pixel of image of a cup. Ibid. The sensor unit 1810 may comprise a camera 160 recording a pixel image of a cup placement area or treatment area 110, wherein the current sensor data of the camera 160 corresponds to the current pixel data of a current pixel image.)
a display control step of causing a display device to display the selected image received in the receiving step, wherein the selected image that can be received in the receiving step includes: (Per Fig. 7, Stork gennant Wersborg discloses a monitoring unit 1830 and a control unit 1860 to preselect one beverage making program. Ibid. [t]he control unit 1860 may be adapted to preselect at least one beverage making program in dependence of the cup size and/or cup type identified by the monitoring unit 1830.)
a first image including a plurality of images explaining respective production steps of the beverage, and (Per Fig. 1, Stork gennant Wersborg’s camera 160 collect image frames of an empty cup. Ibid. col. 9 lines 1–15. Step A: Pictures or images or image frames are gathered of an empty cup holding area to generate current sensor data.)
a second image including one image indicating information regarding a raw material of the beverage or information regarding a recipe of the beverage, in the display control step. (Per Fig. 2, Stork gennant Wersborg collects image frames of different cup filings by training a size of a beverage container. Ibid. col. 9 lines 45–58. In step B, pictures are labelled for different cups such as small, medium, large, to be used as a training set of feature data.)
However, Stork gennant Wersborg fails to specifically disclose when a selection of the first image is received in the receiving step, switching display is performed by switching to the first image and displaying the first image on the display device according to the progress of the production of the beverage, and when a selection of the second image is received in the receiving step, continuous display is performed by continuously displaying the second image on the display device even when the production step of the beverage progress, and by receiving the selection in the receiving step during the production of the beverage in the production step, switching is enabled between the switching display of the first image and the continuous display of the second image.
In related art, Shuya discloses when a selection of the first image is received in the receiving step, switching display is performed by switching to the first image and displaying the first image on the display device according to the progress of the production of the beverage, and (Per Fig. 4 through steps S146–S147, Shuya’s wireless communication unit 110 discloses first image data ¶48. Shuya Spec. ¶48. Following the procedure described above, in step S145 on the display device 1 side, the wireless communication unit 110 receives the first image data.)
when a selection of the second image is received in the receiving step, continuous display is performed by continuously displaying the second image on the display device even when the production step of the beverage progress, and (Per Fig. 4 at step S145, Shuya’s wireless communication unit 110 receives second image data. Ibid. ¶65. Through the procedure described above, in step S145 on the display device 1 side, the wireless communication unit 110 receives the second image data.)
by receiving the selection in the receiving step during the production of the beverage in the production step, switching is enabled between the switching display of the first image and the continuous display of the second image. (Shuya’s imaging device 2 transfers image data into desired image data. Ibid. ¶76. Furthermore, when selectively transferring image data captured by the imaging device 2 to the display device, specifying an image layout frame transmits the transfer start parameters to the imaging device, making it easy to obtain the desired image data.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Shuya into the teachings of Stork gennant Wersborg to eliminate unnecessary operations when images are displayed on a screen such that users can see desired images. Ibid. ¶10.
Regarding claim 19, Stork gennant Wersborg as modified by Shuya, discloses the display method, wherein when a selection of the first image is received during the continuous display of the second image, the display control step switches the display from the second image to an image included in the first image corresponding to the production step currently in progress. (Shuya’s imaging device 2 transfers image data into desired image data. Shuya Spec. ¶76. Furthermore, when selectively transferring image data captured by the imaging device 2 to the display device, specifying an image layout frame transmits the transfer start parameters to the imaging device, making it easy to obtain the desired image data.)
Regarding claim 20, Stork gennant Wersborg as modified by Shuya, discloses the display method, wherein the receiving step receives a selection of either the first image or a second image in response to selection of a tab displayed on the display device during production of the beverage. (Shuya’s imaging device 2 transfers image data into desired image data. Shuya Spec. ¶76. Furthermore, when selectively transferring image data captured by the imaging device 2 to the display device, specifying an image layout frame transmits the transfer start parameters to the imaging device, making it easy to obtain the desired image data.)
Regarding claim 21, Stork gennant Wersborg as modified by Shuya, discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions, that when executed by one or more processors of a beverage production device, cause the beverage production device to perform the display method. (Stork gennant Wersborg. Fig. 1, 150 a monitoring apparatus)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENEDICT LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-0390. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-17:00 (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, Stephen R. Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/BENEDICT E LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665
1 Examiner cannot fathom whether these limitations are physical devices or not.
2 The court disagreed, because it interpreted the claims as encompassing nothing other than pure mental steps (and thus falling within an abstract idea grouping) because the claims did not include any limitations requiring computer implementation.
3 For example, ¶204 describes a transition between screen 1501 and screen 1710 via user interface selection; ¶182 is related to a step-by-step progress guide versus static background information like plantation profiles or barista details.
