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
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, 4-15 and 17-20 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-15, and 17-20 have been amended.
Claims 3 and 16 have been canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 10, 2025 and January 30, 2026 have been considered by the Examiner. An initialed copy of IDS form PTO/SB/08A or 08B are enclosed herewith.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-12, filed December 15, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6-15, 17 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 previously cited prior art.
Applicant argues on page 10 that Harasaki does not teach receiving a user input indicating that the dial plate of the watch has been selected for customization and in response to receiving the user input, obtaining, from a storage, the effective angle image (of the watch in which the dial-plate is viewed from the second angle different from the first angle) 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. Examiner disagrees. Paragraph 141 as seen below explicitly teaches a user being able to select a dial plate for customization and displaying the newly selected dial plate on the image of the watch. Harasaki does not explicitly show the watch at a second angle different than the first angle, however the Park reference will be used to teach this aspect.
[0141] Next, as shown in FIG. 18, when "DIAL-PLATE" is selected as the part, and when the desired dial-plate is selected from six samples of the sample dial-plate, the dial-plate in the whole of the image of the watch is replaced by the selected dial-plate. Similarly, other parts, such as the watch case, the band, etc., are selected by the indication mark so that the parts are displayed on the sample display section. As a result, these parts are replaced to the whole of the image of the watch so that it is possible to design the desired watch. Further, it is possible to revise each part, such as dial-plate, etc., any number of times, by confirming the whole of design coordinate. Further, it is possible to see the original design (step S55).
Next, on pages 12-14, Applicant argues that amended claims overcome 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Specifically, Applicant argues that claim 1 recites a “rule-based method” that solves a technical problem in user interfaces for custom-made product ordering systems and integrates any abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant further argues that the additional limitations of obtaining an effective angle image from storage and causing the screen to switch to that image satisfy Step 2A, Prong Two of a practical application. Applicant extends this argument to claims 2, 4–12, 15, and 17–20 by dependency.
Examiner disagrees. Claim 1 recites limitations that amount to presenting and manipulating images (displaying a “default angle image,” a “plurality of angle images,” an “effective angle image,” and “switching” the display in response to a user selection). These limitations fall squarely within abstract ideas, particularly:
Mental processes (observing/identifying a component in an image and choosing a different view), which can be performed conceptually without a computer. See 2019 PEG, Section I(A)(2)(a); MPEP §2106.04(a).
Presentation of information and data manipulation (storing images; retrieving and displaying a different image upon user input), which is “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results,” akin to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Generic “if-then” rules governing UI behavior (if component selected, then display pre-associated image) are a form of basic decision logic that courts have treated as abstract when claimed at a high level of generality. See Fairwarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc.
Claim 1 does not recite any particular technical algorithm for image processing, any specialized data structure for mapping components to views, or any improvement to the functioning of the computer or display system itself. Instead, it recites results-oriented directions for what to show and when based on user input. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that improvements in the content or arrangement of information on a screen, without a specific technological implementation that improves computer functionality, are abstract. See Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Next regarding practical application, Applicant argues the amended claims recite a practical application because the method obtains an effective angle image and causes the screen to switch from a default image to the effective angle image upon selection. However, integration requires more than performing the abstract idea on a generic computer; it must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a “meaningful limit” beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
Applicant’s claim 1 recites displaying images on a screen, receiving user input, retrieving an image from storage, updating the screen to show the retrieved image. These are generic computer functions that do not improve the functioning of the computer, the display system, image processing technology, or any other technology. The claim does not recite a particular machine (other than a generic “processor,” “storage,” and “screen”), does not transform any article, and does not effect an improvement to a computer’s operation. Also, the additional claim elements (processor, storage, screen, user input) are generic computer components performing their conventional functions. Implementing the abstract idea using such conventional components does not supply an inventive concept.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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, 4-15 and 17-20 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 4-12 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 17-20 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, 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; and
the effective angle image shows the object where the customizable component is viewed from a second angle different from the first angle;
receiving a user input indicating that the customizable component of the object has been selected for customization; and
in response to receiving the 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.
But for the recitation of generic computer components like processor, storage and screen (claim 1); computer-readable recording medium, display control device (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 (claims 13 and 14). The computer hardware are 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 1-20 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 (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, 4-12 and 15, 17-20 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, 4-12 and 15, 17-20 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 4 and 17 recite “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 effective angle image to a mode of information on the selected specification image.” (abstract idea- mental process, observation and evaluation)
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, 4-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-2, 4, 6-15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harasaki et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0119944 (see PTO-892, Ref. A) in view of Park et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0113945 (see PTO-892, Ref. B).
As per claim 1, Harasaki teaches a display control method to be implemented by at least one processor (see paragraphs 122-128, Figure 12), the display control method comprising:
causing a screen to display a default angle image of an object, wherein:
the default angle image shows the object where a customizable component of the object is viewed from a first angle (see paragraphs 115-116, 136-138 and Figures 14, 17 and 18);
the default angle image is one of a plurality of angle images stored in a storage (see paragraphs 134, 173-174 and Figures 13), the plurality of angle images further including an effective angle image previously associated with the customizable component (see paragraphs 147-148, 158-160 and Figures 20 and 41); and
the effective angle image shows the object where the customizable component is viewed (see paragraphs 141);
receiving a user input indicating that the customizable component of the object has been selected for customization (see paragraph 147); and
in response to receiving the 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 166-171 and 130-131).
Harasaki does not explicitly teach a second angle different from the first angle. Park explicitly teaches a second angle different from the first angle (see paragraphs 40, 44 50 and 52 and Figure 6).
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 Harasaki and Park to view an object from multiple viewing directions or angles because the “three dimensional image may be of high quality or quality suitable to give the user a close approximation as to what the product physically looks like” as taught by Park (see paragraph 41).
As per claim 2, Harasaki and Park teach the method of claim 1 as seen above. Harasaki further teaches comprising accepting an order for the object (see paragraphs 130-131 and 166-171).
As per claim 4, Harasaki and Park teach the method of claim 1 as seen above. Harasaki further teaches 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 effective angle image to a mode of information on the selected specification image (see paragraphs 140-147, 166 and Figure 18).
Park also teaches multi pane GUI shows options/specifications (catalog/configuration) in one pane and the 3D product view in another, i.e., spec selection does not overlap the 3D view (see paragraphs 29-34) and dynamically updates the 3D product view when specs are changed (see paragraphs 41-44).
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 Harasaki and Park to view an object from multiple viewing directions or angles and update views as specs are changed because the “three dimensional image may be of high quality or quality suitable to give the user a close approximation as to what the product physically looks like” as taught by Park (see paragraph 41).
As per claim 6, Harasaki and Park teach the method of claim 4 as seen above. Harasaki further teaches 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 131-132 and 169).
As per claim 7, Harasaki and Park teach the method of claim 1 as seen above. Harasaki teaches 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 141, 147 and 151-155 and Figures 18-19).
Park also teaches 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 39-44, 48).
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 Harasaki and Park to view an object from multiple viewing directions or angles and update views as specs are changed because the “three dimensional image may be of high quality or quality suitable to give the user a close approximation as to what the product physically looks like” as taught by Park (see paragraph 41).
Claim 8 recites similar limitations to claim 4 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 4 as set forth above.
As per claim 9, Harasaki and Park teach the method of claim 7 as seen above. Harasaki further teaches wherein the plurality of angle images displayed side by side includes the angle images other than the effective angle image (see Figures 27 and 35).
As per claim 10, Harasaki and Park teach the method of claim 1 as seen above. Harasaki further teaches comprising,
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 122-129, 170-172 and 189-193).
As per claim 11, Harasaki and Park teach the method of claim 1 as seen above. Harasaki further teaches comprising, after accepting completion of customization of the object;
deriving a price for purchasing the object (see paragraph 204); and
causing the screen to display the effective angle image along with the derived price (see Figures 11, 33 and 61 and paragraph 169).
As per claim 12, Harasaki and Park teach 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).
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 17 recites similar limitations to claim 4 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 4 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.
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harasaki et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0119944 (see PTO-892, Ref. A) in view of Knowles et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0346591 (see PTO-892, Ref. C).
As per claim 5, Harasaki and Park teach the method of claim 4 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 Harasaki, Park 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
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 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