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
The amendments to the claims, filed on 06/18/2026, have been entered and made of record.
Claims 1-20 are pending with claims 1-3, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17 and 18 being amended.
Response to Arguments
Arguments presented in the Remarks (“Remarks") filed on 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but are rendered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment(s) initiated by the applicant(s).
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 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 of this title, 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, 9, 13 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsubori (“Tatsubori”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2009/0132931 A1] in view of Haitani et al. (“Haitani”) [US 10,664,903 B1 provided in the PTO-892]
Regarding claim 1, Tatsubori meets the claim limitations as follows:
An information processing system comprising:
a plurality of information processing apparatuses (i.e. client 300) [Fig. 1, 2, 8; para. 0032-0034, 0056: ‘multiple client devices’], each including at least one memory (i.e. ‘Main memory 4’) [Fig. 2] and at least one processor (i.e. ‘Main CPU 1’) [Fig. 2] that executes one or more instructions stored in the at least one memory [para. 0162-0165: ‘the instruction execution system’], wherein the information processing system performs the following,
in a case that customization of an object (i.e. ‘generating a reference mark … on an object’, or ‘decorated with emblem’; e.g. components of a car or a motor cycle) [Fig. 17, 18; para. 0060] related to a product (e.g. a car or a motor cycle) is performed according to a movement in a virtual space by an avatar (e.g. ‘515’; ‘530’) [Fig. 16, 17, 18; para. 0060, 0146-0160: ‘generating a reference mark … using movement of an avatar’] corresponding to a user (i.e. ‘a salesman’ or ‘Grandpa’) [Fig. 16, 17, 18],
generates first customization information (e.g. object id or direction vector) [Fig. 3, 5: a reference mark table including object ID and direction vector; para. 0074, 0095-0098: ‘object information about objects’; Fig. 15: ‘S440’ Read Next Reference Mark Information] including a plurality of first part design information for specifying a design [Fig. 17, 18: Head lamp, ‘Decorated with emblem’] including
selects and executes according to operation by the user, at least one of [Note: In Specification, Fig. 19, S201-S215 support the claimed first process and S210-S215 support the claimed second process. The steps S205-S215 of the first process are similar to steps S210-S215 of the second process. The claim requires “at least one of” a first process or a second process]
a first process [Fig. 8, 15, 17, 18: ‘Detect Event’ S100; ‘Generate and Store Reference Mark’ S115; para. 0060, 0095-0098, 0130-0132: ‘a process for detecting movement indicating an object’; as ‘a trigger to generate a reference mark’] that provides the customized object [Fig. 5: a reference mark table; para. 0060, 0095-0098: ‘generating a reference mark … using movement of an avatar’, ‘object information about objects’; Fig. 15: ‘S440’ Read Next Reference Mark Information; Fig. 17, 18: Head lamp, ‘Decorated with emblem’] based on the first customization information [Fig. 17, 18; para. 0101: ‘the object information (e.g. object id or direction vector) about the object on which the reference mark is to be put’] to the avatar in the virtual space, and
a second process [Fig. 8, 15, 17, 18: ; para. 0060, 0095-0098, 0130-0132: ‘second, a process of guiding an avatar to a target object’] that allows the user to acquire in a real world the product corresponding to the customization (e.g. object id or direction vector) [Fig. 3, 5, 17, 18; para. 0060-0061, 0074, 0095-0098: ‘(2) Notifying the client device 300 of the presence of the generated reference mark …’; ‘(3) Guiding the avatar (the client device) to an object ….’], and
in a case that the second process is selected [Note: the term “in a case that the second process is selected” is not given patentable weights since a first process is selected and executed], further executes a third process of converting a design code unique to the virtual space, which is the part design information in the first customization information, into second customization information that is a format interpretable by another information processing apparatus that performs the second process for the user to acquire the product.
Tatsubori does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
generates first customization information including a plurality of first part design information for specifying a design including at least a color or a shape of each of a plurality of parts constituting the object.
However in the same field of endeavor Haitani discloses the deficient claim as follows:
generates first customization information including a plurality of first part design information for specifying a design including at least a color [Fig. 1H: ‘Color: Red, White, Black, Yellow’; col. 1, ll. 55-65; col. 3, ll. 59-65] or a shape [Fig. 8B: Change Size, Change Color; col. 1, ll. 55-65] of each of a plurality of parts constituting the object.
Tatsubori and Haitani are combinable because they are from the same field of avatar imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Tatsubori and Haitani as motivation to apply avatar imaging for electronic marketplaces [Tasubori: para. 0003: ‘perform a business transaction’; Haitani: col. 1, 3, 4].
Regarding claim 9, the corresponding method in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 13, the corresponding apparatus in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 17, the corresponding CRM having a program in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Claims 2-8, 10-12, 14-16 and 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsubori in view of Haitani in further view of Choi et al. (“Choi”) [US 2020/0160431 A1]
Regarding claim 2, Tatsubori meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1 as follows:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein, in the third process [Not shown] in which the first customization information (e.g. object id or direction vector for ‘reference mark’) [Fig. 3, 12: ‘Receive and store reference mark notification’ S330’; para. 0003: ‘perform a business transaction’] is converted into the second customization information [Fig. 5: the first customization information “Object ID” is further converted to Creator ID], the second customization information can be further interpreted by the information processing apparatus that performs processing related to electronic commerce of the object [Fig. 12: ‘Receive and store reference mark notification’ S330’; para. 0003: ‘perform a business transaction’] and the product is executed, the third process also being executed when the first process is selected.
Tatsubori does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein, in the third process in which the first customization information is converted into the second customization information, the second customization information can be further interpreted by the information processing apparatus that performs processing related to electronic commerce of the object and the product is executed, the third process also being executed when the first process is selected.
However in the same field of endeavor Choi discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein, in the third process (e.g. ‘a payment process’) [Abtract, Fig. 6: ‘642’ Obtain image associated with product based on payment information’] in which the first customization information (i.e. ‘Push Message associated with payment process’ or ‘generate item image’ in place of ‘reference mark’ disclosed by Tatsubori) [Fig. 4, 5, 6: ‘630’, ‘642’; Fig. 8: ‘840’; ‘830’; ‘860’; Fig. 9] is converted into the second customization information (e.g. ‘URL’ or ‘identification information associated with product form push message’) [Fig. 8: 840, 860], the second customization information can be further interpreted by the information processing apparatus that performs processing related to electronic commerce of the object [Fig. 8] and the product is executed, the third process also being executed when the first process is selected.
Tatsubori and Choi are combinable because they are from the same field of avatar imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Tatsubori and Choi as motivation to apply avatar imaging for commercial benefits [Tasubori: para. 0003: ‘perform a business transaction’; Choi: para. 0007: ‘payment information’].
Regarding claim 3, Tatsubori meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 2 as follows:
The information processing system according to claim 2, wherein, the product includes a plurality of parts [Fig. 3, 5, 17, 18: A product or an object, e.g. a motor cycle or a car, includes many parts, e.g. head light or front hood], the first customization information (e.g. object id or direction vector for ‘reference mark’) [Fig. 3, 5, 12: ‘Receive and store reference mark notification’ S330’; para. 0003: ‘perform a business transaction’] includes a plurality of first part design information (e.g. position) [Fig. 3, 5, 17, 18] that specifies a design of the plurality of parts of the product, and in the third process, the plurality of first part design information of the first customization information is converted into a plurality of second part design information (i.e. direction, e.g. visual line vector) [Fig. 3, 5, 17, 18] that can be interpreted by the information processing apparatus, and the second customization information (i.e. direction, e.g. visual line vector) [Fig. 3, 5, 17, 18] including the plurality of second part design information is generated.
Regarding claim 4, Tatsubori meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 2.
Tatsubori does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the second customization information includes a first URL of a first website that performs the electronic commerce of the object that is customized or the product corresponding to the customization, or information to identify the first URL.
However in the same field of endeavor Choi discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the second customization information includes a first URL of a first website [Fig. 8: Access to URL and download image associated with product ‘840’] that performs the electronic commerce of the object that is customized or the product corresponding to the customization, or information to identify the first URL.
Tatsubori and Choi are combinable because they are from the same field of avatar imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Tatsubori and Choi as motivation to apply avatar imaging for commercial benefits [Tasubori: para. 0003: ‘perform a business transaction’; Choi: para. 0007: ‘payment information’].
Regarding claim 5, Tatsubori meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1 as follows:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein in a case that an operation [Fig. 12: Server 200 transmits selected reference mark notification to client 300: ‘320’] that transfers the customized object or the product corresponding to the customization to a predetermined target person (i.e. ‘client 300’) is performed by the user (i.e. ‘client 300’) [Fig. 3, 5, 12; para. 0035: ‘an input from the user of the client device’],
Tatsubori does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein in a case that an operation that transfers the customized object or the product corresponding to the customization to a predetermined target person is performed by the user, a second URL of a second website with which the target person acquires the object or the product, or information to specify the second URL is generated.
However in the same field of endeavor Choi discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein in a case that an operation that transfers the customized object or the product corresponding to the customization to a predetermined target person is performed by the user, a second URL [Fig. 8: Access to URL and download image associated with product ‘840’] of a second website with which the target person acquires the object or the product, or information to specify the second URL is generated [Fig. 8: Access to URL and download image associated with product ‘840’].
Tatsubori and Choi are combinable because they are from the same field of avatar imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Tatsubori and Choi as motivation to apply avatar imaging for commercial benefits [Tasubori: para. 0003: ‘perform a business transaction’; Choi: para. 0007: ‘payment information’].
Regarding claim 6, Tatsubori meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1 as follows:
Tatsubori does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The information processing system according to claim 5, wherein, in a case that an operation is performed by the target person to re-customize the object or the product after displaying the second website, third customization information that specifies contents of the re-customization is generated in response to the operation, and a process in which the target person acquires the object or the product that is re-customized based on the third customization information is executed.
However in the same field of endeavor Choi discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein, in a case that an operation is performed by the target person to re-customize the object or the product after displaying the second website [Fig. 8: Access to URL and download image associated with product ‘840’], third customization information (i.e. ‘obtain identification information associated with product form push message’) [Fig. 8: ‘860’] that specifies contents of the re-customization (i.e. ‘generate item image using image and identification information’) [Fig. 8: 880] is generated in response to the operation, and a process in which the target person acquires the object or the product that is re-customized based on the third customization information is executed.
Tatsubori and Choi are combinable because they are from the same field of avatar imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Tatsubori and Choi as motivation to apply avatar imaging for commercial benefits [Tasubori: para. 0003: ‘perform a business transaction’; Choi: para. 0007: ‘payment information’].
Regarding claim 7, Tatsubori meets the claim limitations as follows:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein a process to assign at least one of a first indicator (e.g. object id or direction vector) [Fig. 3, 5: a reference mark table including object ID and direction vector; para. 0074, 0095-0098: ‘object information about objects’; Fig. 15: ‘S440’ Read Next Reference Mark Information] indicating that the customization is made in the virtual space and a second indicator (i.e. ‘avatar id’) [Fig. 3] representing the avatar that performed the customization to the object that is customized, or the product corresponding to the customization is executed.
Regarding claim 8, Tatsubori meets the claim limitations as follows:
The information processing system according to claim 4, wherein at least one of a first indicator (e.g. object id or direction vector) [Fig. 3, 5: a reference mark table including object ID and direction vector; para. 0074, 0095-0098: ‘object information about objects’; Fig. 15: ‘S440’ Read Next Reference Mark Information] representing that the customization is made in the virtual space and a second indicator representing the avatar that performs the customization is displayed on the first website (i.e. ‘avatar id’) [Fig. 3].
Regarding claim 10, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 2 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 5 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 5.
Regarding claim 12, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 7 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 7.
Regarding claim 14, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 2 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 5 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 7 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 2 in the “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” form and rejected as per discussion for claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 5 in the “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” form and rejected as per discussion for claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 7 in the “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” form and rejected as per discussion for claim 7.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. 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.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights