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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 3/16/2026, and is a Final Office Action. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11-15 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 11-12 depend on Claim 10, wherein Claim 10 is a cancelled claim. Appropriate correction is required. For Examination purposes, claims 11-12 are being considered as being dependent on claim 1.
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, 3, 4, 6-9, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards an apparatus, thus meeting the Step 1 criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a method of organizing human activity – i.e. commercial interactions , including sales activities or behaviors/business relations, which represents a method of organizing human activity and has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: acquires input information including a purpose of the design object as determined and input by a user / generates design information that includes information related to design of the design object based on a behavioral economic background determined according to the input information / outputs the design / the behavioral economic background is at least any of …bandwagon effect / generates a design plan of the design object based on the design information, and displays the design plan of the design object / calculates a physical quantity related to the display of the design plan / the user evaluates the physical quantity that is displayed and determines if the created design is to be modified based on the displayed physical quantity. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “In this regard, the following Patent Literature 1 discloses an information processing apparatus including a function of managing templates (model data) for creating an editing material such as a flyer and an advertisement and providing a template in response to a request. This apparatus extracts content (background content, image content, character string content, and the like) from an input document, determines the taste of its content, and selects a template.”, “Therefore, an object of the present invention is to provide, for a user who has little knowledge about advertisement design, a design creation support apparatus, a design creation support method, and a design creation support program that support design creation of an advertisement. Here, the user is a person who actually uses the design creation support apparatus.”, “A design creation support apparatus 100 according to the first embodiment is an apparatus that presents, to a user, catchphrases and/or design plans of advertisements of products, services, and the like, thereby supporting design creation of advertisements. Note that hereinafter, a case where the design creation support apparatus 100 mainly supports the design creation of advertisements will be described. However, the design creation support apparatus 100 may be configured to support not only the design creation of advertisements, but also the design creation of design objects including publications (for example, magazines and the like). In this case, the design creation support apparatus 100 can also be used for the design creation of cover sheets of magazines and the like, for example.”, “The advertisement medium (applied medium) may be a print medium and a digital medium. The print medium may be, for example, a paper print medium for advertising by printing information on paper, such as paper flyers. Alternatively, the print medium may be a medium for advertising with printed material other than paper. Meanwhile, the digital medium may be, for example, web flyers displayed on a personal computer or a smartphone. in addition, the user is a user (operator) of the design creation support apparatus 100, and may be an advertiser (for example, a seller of a product or a service to be targeted for the advertisement) itself, a corporation such as an advertising company and the like, and an advertising designer that are requested to create an advertisement by the advertiser, and the like. In addition, the user may be, for example, a person who creates a sample of advertisement design as part of a sales process (for example, a sales representative of a printing company). It is assumed that many of advertisers, sales representatives, and the like have little knowledge about advertisement design.”, “The behavioral economics determination section 235 determines behavioral economics to be applied. More specifically, the behavioral economics determination section 235 searches for, using the behavioral economics database 232, the behavioral economics corresponding to the advertisement information to determine the behavioral economics to be applied. The behavioral economics represents behavior or decision making of the target for advertising appeal. Thus, it is possible to obtain the behavioral economic relationship between the advertisement information (the purpose and approach of the advertisement) and the behavior or decision making of the target for advertising appeal from the behavioral economics database 232(Table 1).”, “The advertisement creation algorithm section 236 receives, from the advertisement design creation section 230, the components such as the catchphrase of the advertisement, the inserted image, and the table, and performs various calculations in the design creation of the advertisement to transmit the calculation result to the advertisement design creation section 230. More specifically, the advertisement creation algorithm section 236 includes an algorithm for calculating the position, size, and the like of each component on the print surface (or the screen or the like) of the advertisement.”.
Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: generates design information that includes information related to design of the design object based on a behavioral economic background determined according to the input information / outputs the design / generates a design plan of the design object based on the design information, and displays the design plan of the design object / calculates a physical quantity related to the display of the design plan / the user evaluates the physical quantity that is displayed and determines if the created design is to be modified based on the displayed physical quantity. These claimed interpretations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind or using pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computing elements- as noted below, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional element of a hardware processor , which represents a generic computing element. The additional element of ‘the output design is applied to one of a print medium or digital medium’ does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional element does not improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor does it apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional element of ‘the output design is applied to one of a print medium or digital medium’ does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 14, 15 are directed towards a method and recording medium for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion; the claims recite the same abstract idea as Claim 1. Claims 14, 15 perform the method of claim 1 using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 14, 15 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 3, 4, 6-9, 11-13 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The claims further recite the additional elements of a database/screen, which represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not, alone, or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
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, 3, 4, 11, 13, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Foth (20120246010 ) in further view of Shoemaker (20080091526 ) in even further view of Pinel (20200167832 ).
As per Claims 1, 14, 15, Foth teaches an apparatus, method and recording medium comprising:
a hardware processor that: -acquires input information including a purpose of the design object as determined an input into the apparatus by a user ; (the processor/apparatus represent generic computing elements that performs the claimed limitations. At least: fig1 and associated/related text and claim 1 – processing device/apparatus; at least para 21, fig4 and associated/related text – generating targeted ads based on targeted info [purpose of the design object])
generates design information that includes information related to design of the design object based on a behavioral economic background determined according to the input information; (at least: para 28)
outputs the design (at least para 30, fig9 and associated/related text)
the output design is applied to one of a print medium or digital medium; (at least: para 5, 30)
the hardware processor generates a design plan of the design object based on the
design information, and displays the design plan of the design object; (at least: fig2 and associated /related text, para 28)
Shoemaker further teaches:
The behavioral economic background is at least any of…priming effect (at least: para 45)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Foth’s existing features, with Shoemaker’s feature of the behavioral economic background being a priming effect, to allow ads to be presented in a way that cumulatively increases the probability of user interaction with the advertising entity by taking into account the impact of past and future ad views on the user's thought process, priming effects, and decision-making tendencies – Shoemaker, para 45. Furthermore, 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.
Pinel also further teaches generating a design plan of a design object based on design information, and displaying the design plan - at least: fig6 and associated /related text.
Pinel further teaches:
the hardware processor calculates a physical quantity related to display of the
design plan; (at least: para 47-48, 53)
the user evaluates the physical quantity that is displayed and determines if the
created design is to be modified based on the displayed physical quantity. (at least: para 47-48, 53)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Foth’s existing features, combined with Shoemaker’s existing features, with Pinel’s features of calculates a physical quantity related to display of the
design plan; the user evaluates the physical quantity that is displayed and determines if the
created design is to be modified based on the displayed physical quantity, for creating layout for an advertisement and choosing a color scheme, with good color harmony, for the advertisement – Pinel, abstract. Furthermore, 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 3, Foth in view of Shoemaker in further view of Pinel teach:
hardware processor further acquires, as the input information, at least any of an approach of the design object, a target audience for appeal, an image to be inserted into the design object, and an applied medium. (Foth- target audience: at least abstract, para 5)
As per Claim 4, Foth in view of Shoemaker in further view of Pinel teach:
the applied medium includes a print medium and a digital medium. (Foth - at least: para 5, 30 – printed medium and digital medium)
As per Claim 11, Foth in view of Shoemaker in further view of Pinel further teach:
the physical quantity includes at least any of a conspicuous degree and a hue. (hue – Pinel, at least para 47-48)
As per Claim 13, Foth in view of Shoemaker in further view of Pinel further teach:
receives a conversion of a campaign of a design object corresponding to the purpose of the design object. (Pinel , at least: abstract)
Claims 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Foth (20120246010 ) in further view of Shoemaker (20080091526 ) in further view of Pinel (20200167832 ) in even further view of Wen (20140164062 ).
As per Claim 6, Wen further teaches:
a database that stores therein a behavioral economic background corresponding to the purpose of the design object; (the database represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitation. at least: para 31 – database, at least fig8 and associated/related text)
wherein the hardware processor searches for, using the database, the behavioral economic background corresponding to the purpose of the design object and determines a behavioral economic background to be applied. (at least fig8 and associated /related text)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Foth’s existing features, combined with Shoemaker’s existing features, combined with Pinel’s existing features, with Wen’s feature of a database that stores therein a behavioral economic background corresponding to the purpose of the design object / wherein the hardware processor searches for, using the database, the behavioral economic background corresponding to the purpose of the design object and determines a behavioral economic background to be applied, 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, Foth in view of Shoemaker in further view of Pinel in further view of Wen further teach:
hardware processor interprets a text content of the purpose of the design object and determines the behavioral economic background to be applied based on an interpretation result. (Foth- at least para 28)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Foth (20120246010 ) in further view of Shoemaker (20080091526 ) in further view of Pinel (20200167832 ) in even further view of Zhou (20080082410 ).
As per Claim 9, Zhou further teaches:
the hardware processor causes a user to select the behavioral economic background that is to be applied (at least para 37 – advertiser profile includes ad purpose, where the profile data is entered/received from a user – para 15; selecting/displaying ad text based on the ad profile data – at least para 37-38; ad purpose is construed as behavioral economic background that is to be applied)
the hardware processor selects a catchphrase of a design object based on the background that is selected and generates the design information including the catchphrase and display layout of the catchphrase. (at least para 37 – advertiser profile includes ad purpose, where the profile data is entered/received from a user – para 15; selecting/displaying ad text based on the ad profile data – at least para 37-38; ad purpose is construed as behavioral economic background that is to be applied, selecting an ad text based on the profile data, including ad purpose data, is construed as selecting a design object catchphrase based on the behavioral economic background.)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Foth’s existing features, combined with Shoemaker’s existing features, combined with Pinel’s existing features, with Zhou’s feature of the hardware processor causes a user to select the behavioral economic background that is to be applied; the hardware processor selects a catchphrase of a design object based on the background that is selected and generates the design information including the catchphrase and display layout of the catchphrase, to dynamically generate ad-associated text – Zhou, abstract. Furthermore, 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Foth (20120246010 ) in further view of Shoemaker (20080091526 ) in further view of Pinel (20200167832 ) in even further view of Fujioka (20100235766).
As per Claim 12, Foth in view of Shoemaker in further view of Pinel teach:
the hardware processor generates display layout for displaying, on an identical screen, the purpose of the design object, the catchphrase of the design object, the image to be inserted into the design object, the behavioral economic background corresponding to the purpose of the design object, (Foth – design purpose: at least fig6 – prospects, catchphrase of the object – at least fig 9 and associated /related text, image to be inserted – at least para 29, fig8-9 and associated/related text, behavioral economic background corresponding to the purpose – at least fig6 and associated/related text: number of prospects)
Fujioka further teaches displaying the physical quantity on a screen – at least para 91: the color quantity is construed as the quantity. Fujioka further teaches displaying the content on an identical screen – at least para 90-91: preview window is construed as the identical screen.
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Foth’s existing features, combined with Shoemaker’s existing features, combined with Pinel’s existing features, with Fujioka’s feature of displaying the quantity on a screen/displaying content on an identical screen, to allow for the creation/management of content – Fujioka, abstract. Furthermore, 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.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of
Claim 8. The cited prior art above teaches the claimed limitations of pending claim 1/6; however, when taken as a whole, claim 8 is not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be
obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
The pending claims relate to a practical application. At least the user evaluation of the physical quantity and determination if the created design is to be modified based on this review more clearly incorporates the claims into a practical application. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that this amounts to the required "significantly more" so that the claims are drawn to patentable subject matter. Withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 is respectfully requested.
The pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as noted above. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “In this regard, the following Patent Literature 1 discloses an information processing apparatus including a function of managing templates (model data) for creating an editing material such as a flyer and an advertisement and providing a template in response to a request. This apparatus extracts content (background content, image content, character string content, and the like) from an input document, determines the taste of its content, and selects a template.”, “Therefore, an object of the present invention is to provide, for a user who has little knowledge about advertisement design, a design creation support apparatus, a design creation support method, and a design creation support program that support design creation of an advertisement. Here, the user is a person who actually uses the design creation support apparatus.”, “A design creation support apparatus 100 according to the first embodiment is an apparatus that presents, to a user, catchphrases and/or design plans of advertisements of products, services, and the like, thereby supporting design creation of advertisements. Note that hereinafter, a case where the design creation support apparatus 100 mainly supports the design creation of advertisements will be described. However, the design creation support apparatus 100 may be configured to support not only the design creation of advertisements, but also the design creation of design objects including publications (for example, magazines and the like). In this case, the design creation support apparatus 100 can also be used for the design creation of cover sheets of magazines and the like, for example.”, “The advertisement medium (applied medium) may be a print medium and a digital medium. The print medium may be, for example, a paper print medium for advertising by printing information on paper, such as paper flyers. Alternatively, the print medium may be a medium for advertising with printed material other than paper. Meanwhile, the digital medium may be, for example, web flyers displayed on a personal computer or a smartphone. in addition, the user is a user (operator) of the design creation support apparatus 100, and may be an advertiser (for example, a seller of a product or a service to be targeted for the advertisement) itself, a corporation such as an advertising company and the like, and an advertising designer that are requested to create an advertisement by the advertiser, and the like. In addition, the user may be, for example, a person who creates a sample of advertisement design as part of a sales process (for example, a sales representative of a printing company). It is assumed that many of advertisers, sales representatives, and the like have little knowledge about advertisement design.”, “The behavioral economics determination section 235 determines behavioral economics to be applied. More specifically, the behavioral economics determination section 235 searches for, using the behavioral economics database 232, the behavioral economics corresponding to the advertisement information to determine the behavioral economics to be applied. The behavioral economics represents behavior or decision making of the target for advertising appeal. Thus, it is possible to obtain the behavioral economic relationship between the advertisement information (the purpose and approach of the advertisement) and the behavior or decision making of the target for advertising appeal from the behavioral economics database 232(Table 1).”, “The advertisement creation algorithm section 236 receives, from the advertisement design creation section 230, the components such as the catchphrase of the advertisement, the inserted image, and the table, and performs various calculations in the design creation of the advertisement to transmit the calculation result to the advertisement design creation section 230. More specifically, the advertisement creation algorithm section 236 includes an algorithm for calculating the position, size, and the like of each component on the print surface (or the screen or the like) of the advertisement.”.
Designing an advertisement/publication represents a business practice/goal, not other technology/technical field; thus, improving this practice pertains to a business practice optimization, not to an improvement to other technology/technical field. The pending claims, when implemented, do not effect an improvement to the functioning of the device itself, or other technology/technical field.
See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
Remaining arguments: Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 extension fee 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 ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
3/18/2026