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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 26, 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Priority is acknowledged to Japanese patent application 2021-171228 which was filed October 19, 2021.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2, 5-15 and 18-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 13-15 and 18-19 have been amended.
Claims 3-4 and 16-17 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ replacement Abstract filed on May 26, 2026 has been accepted.
Applicant's arguments filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 9-12 that claims 1-2, 5-15 and 18-20 as presented are directed to patent eligible subject matter. Examiner disagrees.
Applicant argues that the claims recite a technical solution to a technical problem in a display control method for a custom-made product ordering system, namely, the coordinated presentation of selected specifications across multiple viewing angles. Examiner disagrees. The claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of presenting information, receiving user input, and updating displayed information based on the input. More particularly, the claims recite, in substance:
displaying images of an object,
receiving a selection of a customizable component,
obtaining a corresponding image from storage,
updating the display to show the selected specification, and
updating additional thumbnail images to reflect the selected specification.
These recitations merely describe the presentation of information and the manipulation of display content in response to user input. Such activities are within the realm of abstract ideas, including methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Next, Applicant further contends that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because the claims recite a specific display control method that coordinates multiple angle-specific images. This argument is not persuasive. The claims do not recite any improvement to the functioning of a computer, display technology, image rendering, storage structure, or data processing architecture. Rather, the claims employ generic computer components and conventional display operations to implement the abstract idea of showing customizable product information.
The purported improvement is directed to the content and arrangement of the information displayed to a user, not to a technological improvement in the computer itself or another technological field. Simply reciting that images are updated across multiple views in response to a selection does not render the claims eligible where the underlying operations remain generic and routine.
Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-18, filed May 26, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 5-15 and 18-20 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “further comprising, once a purchase settlement for the object is completed, outputting an instruction for producing the object, the instruction including the effective angle image displayed in the mode of information on the selected specification image.” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitations receiving, obtaining, causing, receiving and updating as seen below. The processor is “configured to,” but several limitations use gerunds such as receiving, obtaining, causing, receiving and updating rather than infinitive verb forms such as “receive,” “obtain,” “cause,” “receive,” and “update.” This creates grammatical ambiguity because when a device is configured for something, there should not be positively recited action verbs in the claim language.
A display control device comprising: at least one processor configured to:
cause a screen to display a default angle image of an object and a plurality of thumbnail images, wherein:
the default angle image shows the object where a customizable component of the object is viewed from a first angle;
the default angle image is one of a plurality of angle images stored in a storage, the plurality of angle images further including an effective angle image previously associated with the customizable component;
the effective angle image shows the object where the customizable component is viewed from a second angle different from the first angle; and
the plurality of thumbnail images respectively correspond to remaining angle images of the plurality of angle images other than the effective angle image;
receiving a first user input indicating that the customizable component of the object has been selected for customization;
in response to receiving the first user input:
obtaining, from the storage, the effective angle image from among the plurality of angle images; and
causing the screen to switch from displaying the default angle image to displaying the effective angle image
causing the screen to display a variation image that indicates a plurality of selectable specifications for the customizable component without overlapping the effective angle image;
receiving a second user input indicating that a specification of one of the plurality of selectable specifications for the customizable component has been selected; and
in response to receiving the second user input indicating that the specification has been selected:
obtaining a selected specification image that indicates the selected specification in the second angle;
updating the display of the effective angle image to show the selected specification image; and
simultaneously updating the plurality of thumbnail images to respectively correspond to the remaining angle images of the plurality of angle images, each showing the selected specification.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation reads “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the screen to display information indicating out of stock for a specification that is not in inventory among the one or plurality of selectable specifications for the customizable component.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 which claim 18 depends on recites:
causing the screen to display a variation image that indicates a plurality of selectable specifications for the customizable component without overlapping the effective angle image;
receiving a second user input indicating that a specification of one of the plurality of selectable specifications for the customizable component has been selected.
It is unclear which plurality of selectable specifications claim 18 is referring to in claim 14 as there is inconsistency with the antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation reads “wherein the at least one processor is configured to, once a purchase settlement for the object is completed, output an instruction for producing the object, the instruction including the effective angle image displayed in the mode of information on the selected specification image.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-2, 5-15 and 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
In the instant case, claims 1-2 and 5-12 are directed to a method (i.e. a process), claim 13 is directed to a computer storage medium (i.e. a manufacture) and claims 14-15 and 18-20 are directed to a device (i.e. a machine). Thus, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea. (Step 1- Yes)
Step 2A- Prong 1
Independent claims 1, 13 and 14 recite steps that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover Mental Processes, e.g. concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement opinion). Specifically, the claims (claim 1 is shown below) recite:
A display control method to be implemented by at least one processor, the display control method comprising:
causing a screen to display a default angle image of an object and a plurality of thumbnail images, wherein:
the default angle image shows the object where a customizable component of the object is viewed from a first angle;
the default angle image is one of a plurality of angle images stored in a storage, the plurality of angle images further including an effective angle image previously associated with the customizable component;
the effective angle image shows the object where the customizable component is viewed from a second angle different from the first angle; and
the plurality of thumbnail images respectively correspond to remaining angle images of the plurality of angle images other than the effective angle image;
receiving a first user input indicating that the customizable component of the object has been selected for customization;
in response to receiving the first user input:
obtaining, from the storage, the effective angle image from among the plurality of angle images; and
causing the screen to switch from displaying the default angle image to displaying the effective angle image;
causing the screen to display a variation image that indicates a plurality of selectable specifications for the customizable component without overlapping the effective angle image;
receiving a second user input indicating that a specification of one of the plurality of selectable specifications for the customizable component has been selected; and
in response to receiving the second user input indicating that the specification has been selected:
obtaining a selected specification image that indicates the selected specification in the second angle;
updating the display of the effective angle image to show the selected specification image; and
simultaneously updating the plurality of thumbnail images to respectively correspond to the remaining angle images of the plurality of angle images, each showing the selected specification.
But for the recitation of generic computer components like processor, storage and screen (claim 1); computer-readable recording medium, display control device, storage and screen (claims 13 and 14) the italicized functions, when considered as a whole, describe displaying an object made up of different components and focusing on or selecting one particular component for whatever reason. For example, a person may observe a watch on display and focus on or select the watch straps for evaluation to determine if it may need to be replaced in the future. Observation and evaluation of an object on display can be performed in the human mind. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C where using a generic computer for a judicial exception has been found to be abstract. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 13 and 14 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
Step 2A- Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite: processor, storage and screen (claim 1); computer-readable recording medium, display control device, storage and screen (claims 13 and 14). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See Applicant's specification paragraphs 11, 20, 22-25, 135-136 and 138 about implementation on invention using various computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Also, the additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (displaying data), see MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1-2, 5-15 and 18-20 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept’) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of processor, storage and screen (claim 1); computer-readable recording medium, display control device, storage and screen (claims 13 and 14) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 13, and 14 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent claims 2, 5-12 and 15, 18-20 inherit the limitations that recite an abstract idea from their dependence on claims 1 and 15, respectively, and thus these claims also recite an abstract idea. In addition, claims 2, 5-12 and 15, 18-20 recite additional limitations that further describe the abstract idea identified in the independent claims.
Claims 2 and 15 recite “comprising accepting an order for the object” (abstract idea- certain methods of organizing human activity, sales activities)
Claims 5 and 18 recite “comprising causing the screen to display information indicating out of stock for a specification that is not in inventory among the one or plurality of selectable specifications for the customizable component.” (abstract idea- certain methods of organizing human activity, sales activities)
Claims 6 and 19 recite “comprising, once a purchase settlement for the object is completed, outputting an instruction for producing the object, the instruction including the effective angle image displayed in the mode of information on the selected specification image.” (abstract idea- certain methods of organizing human activity, sales activities)
Claims 7 and 20 recite “comprising causing the screen to display the plurality of angle images including the effective angle image side by side, each in a selectable manner.” (abstract idea- mental process, observation and evaluation)
Claim 8 recites “comprising: after receiving the user input, causing the screen to display a variation image that indicates one or a plurality of selectable specifications for the customizable component without overlapping the effective angle image; receiving a user input indicating that a specification of the one or a plurality of selectable specifications for the customizable component has been selected; and in response to receiving the user input indicating that the specification has been selected, obtaining a selected specification image that indicates the selected specification, and causing the screen to change a display mode of the customizable component included in the plurality of angle images displayed side by side to a mode of information on the selected specification image.” (abstract idea- mental process, observation and evaluation)
Claim 9 recites “wherein the plurality of angle images displayed side by side includes the angle images other than the effective angle image.” (abstract idea- mental process, observation and evaluation)
Claim 10 recites “comprising, after receiving an instruction to transmit information on an image related to the object: generating information on the image for transmission based on the information on the image related to the displayed object; and transmitting the generated information on the image for transmission to an external device.” (abstract idea- mental process, observation and evaluation)
Claim 11 recites “comprising, after accepting completion of customization of the object; deriving a price for purchasing the object; and causing the screen to display the effective angle image along with the derived price.” (abstract idea- certain methods of organizing human activity, sales activities)
Claim 12 recites “wherein the object is a watch; and the customizable component includes one of a bezel and a band.” (abstract idea- mental process, observation and evaluation and organizing human activity, sales activities)
Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claims 1-2, 5-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-11, 13-15, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Isaacson et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0374820 (see PTO-892, Ref. D).
As per claim 1, Isaacson teaches a display control method to be implemented by at least one processor, the display control method comprising:
causing a screen to display a default angle image of an object and a plurality of thumbnail images, wherein (see paragraphs 35-43, 51-58 and 66-68 and Figures 2B, 3A and 3B):
the default angle image shows the object where a customizable component of the object is viewed from a first angle;
the default angle image is one of a plurality of angle images stored in a storage, the plurality of angle images further including an effective angle image previously associated with the customizable component (see paragraphs 35-37, 40-43 and 62 and Figures 2B, 3A and 3B);
the effective angle image shows the object where the customizable component is viewed from a second angle different from the first angle (see paragraphs 41-43, 62 and 70-72 and Figures 2B, 3A and 3B); and
the plurality of thumbnail images respectively correspond to remaining angle images of the plurality of angle images other than the effective angle image (see paragraphs 35-37, 62 and 70-72 and Figures 2B, 3A and 3B);
receiving a first user input indicating that the customizable component of the object has been selected for customization (see paragraphs 39-43, 66-68 and 70-72);
in response to receiving the first user input:
obtaining, from the storage, the effective angle image from among the plurality of angle images; and
causing the screen to switch from displaying the default angle image to displaying the effective angle image (see paragraphs 35-43, 62 and 70-72);
causing the screen to display a variation image that indicates a plurality of selectable specifications for the customizable component without overlapping the effective angle image (see paragraphs 51-58 and 66-68);
receiving a second user input indicating that a specification of one of the plurality of selectable specifications for the customizable component has been selected; and
in response to receiving the second user input indicating that the specification has been selected:
obtaining a selected specification image that indicates the selected specification in the second angle;
updating the display of the effective angle image to show the selected specification image; and
simultaneously updating the plurality of thumbnail images to respectively correspond to the remaining angle images of the plurality of angle images, each showing the selected specification (see paragraphs 39-43, 62 and 69-72).
As per claim 2, Isaacson teaches the method of claim 1 as seen above. Isaacson further teaches comprising accepting an order for the object (see paragraphs 48-50).
As per claim 6, Isaacson teaches the method of claim 1 as seen above. Isaacson further teaches further comprising, once a purchase settlement for the object is completed, outputting an instruction for producing the object, the instruction including the effective angle image displayed in the mode of information on the selected specification image (see paragraphs 48-50 and 59).
As per claim 7, Isaacson teaches the method of claim 1 as seen above. Isaacson further teaches further comprising causing the screen to display the plurality of angle images including the effective angle image side by side, each in a selectable manner (see paragraphs 51-58 and 66-68 and Figures 2B, 3A and 3B).
As per claim 8, Isaacson teaches the method of claim 1 as seen above. Isaacson further teaches in response to receiving the second user input indicating that the specification has been selected, causing the screen to change a display mode of the customizable component included in the plurality of angle images displayed side by side to a mode of information on the selected specification image (see paragraphs 51-58 and 66-68).
As per claim 9, Isaacson teaches the method of claim 1 as seen above. Isaacson further teaches wherein the plurality of angle images displayed side by side includes the angle images other than the effective angle image (see paragraphs 39-43, 51-58, 62 and 70-72 and Figures 2B, 3A and 3B).
As per claim 10, Isaacson teaches the method of claim 1 as seen above. Isaacson further teaches further comprising, after receiving an instruction to transmit information on an image related to the object: generating information on the image for transmission based on the information on the image related to the displayed object; and transmitting the generated information on the image for transmission to an external device (see paragraphs 48-50).
As per claim 11, Isaacson teaches the method of claim 1 as seen above. Isaacson further teaches further comprising, after accepting completion of customization of the object: deriving a price for purchasing the object; and causing the screen to display the effective angle image along with the derived price(see paragraphs 26 and 44-47 and Figures 2A and 2B).
Claims 13 and 14 recite similar limitations to claim 1 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 1 as set forth above.
Claim 15 recites similar limitations to claim 2 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 2 as set forth above.
Claim 19 recites similar limitations to claim 6 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 6 as set forth above.
Claim 20 recites similar limitations to claim 7 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 7 as set forth above.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaacson et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0374820 (see PTO-892, Ref. D) in view of Harasaki et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0119944 (see PTO-892, Ref. A).
As per claim 12, Isaacson teaches the method of claim 1 as seen above. Harasaki further teaches wherein;
the object is a watch; and
the customizable component includes one of a bezel and a band (see Figure 25-29, 47 and 35 and paragraph 116, 141 and 159-164).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Isaacson and Harasaki to teach customizable jewelry like a watch with components like bezel and bands because it would allow for a watch to be designed by a consumer and then be produced by a watch maker as taught by Harasaki (see paragraph 9).
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaacson et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0374820 (see PTO-892, Ref. D) in view of Knowles et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0346591 (see PTO-892, Ref. C).
As per claim 5, Isaacson teaches the method of claim 1 as seen above. Knowles teaches comprising causing the screen to display information indicating out of stock for a specification that is not in inventory among the one or plurality of selectable specifications for the customizable component (see paragraph 103 and Figures 6A and 6B).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Isaacson and Knowles to indicate an item is out of stock because it would let the consumer know what can be made with items that are in stock as taught by Knowles (see paragraph 103).
Claim 18 recites similar limitations to claim 5 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 5 as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHID R MERCHANT whose telephone number is (571)270-1360. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights