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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 19 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 12/11/2025. Claims 1, 9 – 12, & 18 – 19 were amended, claim 13 was cancelled in a reply filed 03/03/2026. Claims 1 – 12 & 14 – 19 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Novel/Nonobvious Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 12 & 14 – 19 are not rejected over the prior art.
The closest prior art, Braganza et al. (US 20230245163 A1) (see the nonfinal office action for a full analysis of the teachings of Braganza), discloses estimating a static and dynamic value of an NFT, but fails to disclose the functionality of evaluating the static value based on an evaluation of substance of the three-dimensional shape data, wherein the same static evaluation is set for a plurality of items of digital content generated on the basis of the three-dimensional shape data, controlling a display device to (i) display a first digital content owned by a user in a first quality and a second digital content not owned by the user in a second quality lower than the first quality, and (ii) displaying a price of the second digital content set by a seller and the estimated value of the second digital content.
Mintz et al. (US 20110196765 A1) teaches a marketplace for trading financial items, comprising an interface which displays a listed price and an estimated price in [0084] – [0085]. However, Mintz fails to disclose the functionality of evaluating a static value based on an evaluation of substance of the three-dimensional shape data, wherein the same static evaluation is set for a plurality of items of digital content generated on the basis of the three-dimensional shape data, and controlling a display device to (i) display a first digital content owned by a user in a first quality and a second digital content not owned by the user in a second quality lower than the first quality.
Response to Arguments
The claims filed on 03/03/2026 have overcome the previous 103 rejections
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/03/2026 with respect to the previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pp. 7 – 8, that “amended independent claim 1 recites the practical application of having the apparatus "control a display device to (i) display a first digital content owned by a user in a first quality and a second digital content not owned by the user in a second quality lower than the first quality, and (ii) display a price of the second digital content set by a seller and the estimated value of the second digital content” and therefore “recite{s} a meaningful limitation, are not directed to an abstract idea, and are therefore patent eligible”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the above-cited limitations amount to a mere displaying of information, which is a part of the recited judicial exception. That a “display device” is controlled to perform the information presentation amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). As a general rule, "the collection, organization, and display of two sets of information on a generic display device is abstract." Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Examiner further notes that the Courts have stated that “we have also held that improving a user’s experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims directed to an improvement in computer functionality. For example, in Trading Techs. I, we held patent ineligible claims directed to a computer-based method for facilitating the placement of a trader’s order. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC , 921 F.3d 1084, 1092–93 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. I). Although the claimed display purportedly "assist[ed] traders in processing information more quickly," we held that this purported improvement in user experience did not 'improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem.' Id.; see also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC , 921 F.3d 1378, 1381, 1384–85 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. II) (holding that claims 'focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly' did not constitute a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality). Customedia Technologies v. Dish Network, 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Accordingly, the recited displaying of information in the instant claims, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are not directed to an improvement to the functionality of a computing device or any other technology; rather, they merely instruct the practitioner to implement the recited judicial exception using generically-recited computing components. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and are not eligible under 35 USC 101.
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 – 12 & 14 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1 – 12 & 14 – 17 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); claim 18 is directed to a method (i.e., a process); claim 19 is directed to a product (i.e., a manufacture). Therefore, claims 1 – 12 & 14 – 19 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1, 18, & 19 substantially recite: “set information indicating a static evaluation of... content… and the static evaluation being an evaluation of substance of the three-dimensional shape data, wherein the same static evaluation is set for a plurality of items of… content generated on the basis of the three-dimensional shape data; determine a dynamic evaluation of the… content, the dynamic evaluation being an evaluation that can change over time; estimate a value of the… content on the basis of both the static evaluation and the dynamic evaluation; and… (i) display a first… content owned by a user in a first quality and a second… content not owned by the user in a second quality lower than the first quality, and (ii) display a price of the second… content set by a seller and the estimated value of the second… content.”
The limitations stated above are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a business relation or commercial interaction. That is, the functions in the context of the claims encompass pricing content and managing a marketplace. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction, or while managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas e.g., “commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, and following rules or instructions).” Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 18, & 19, as a whole, amounts to merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) exception, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as well as generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular field or technological environment. Claim 1 recites the additional computer-related elements of: “information processing apparatus,” “one or more memories storing instructions,” “control a display device to,” and “one or more processors.” Claim 18 recites the additional computer-related element of: “control a display device to.” Claim 19 recites the additional computer-related element of: “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program executable by a computer” and “control a display device to.” Claims 1, 18, & 19 additionally recite the additional elements of: “digital” and “the digital content being generated on the basis of three-dimensional shape data indicating a three-dimensional shape of a subject generated using a plurality of captured images obtained by a plurality of image capturing apparatuses.”
The additional elements of “information processing apparatus,” “one or more memories storing instructions,” “one or more processors,” control a display device to,” and “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program executable by a computer” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements of “digital” and “the digital content being generated on the basis of three-dimensional shape data indicating a three-dimensional shape of a subject generated using a plurality of captured images obtained by a plurality of image capturing apparatuses” are recited at a high-level of generality, and when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) as well as merely generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) & MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as well as (iii) generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular field or technological environment, and do not provide integration of the recited abstract ideas into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity, such as mere data retrieval / electronic scanning) to the judicial exception (See MPEP2106.05(g)), as well as (iii) generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) & MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Furthermore, the extra-solution functionality of “the digital content being generated on the basis of three-dimensional shape data indicating a three-dimensional shape of a subject generated using a plurality of captured images obtained by a plurality of image capturing apparatuses” has been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), noting: “Transmitting data over a network” and “Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document”), and thus do not amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of “information processing apparatus,” “one or more memories storing instructions,” “one or more processors,” control a display device to,” “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program executable by a computer,” “digital,” and “the digital content being generated on the basis of three-dimensional shape data indicating a three-dimensional shape of a subject generated using a plurality of captured images obtained by a plurality of image capturing apparatuses” fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements, taken both individually and as an ordered combination, improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2 – 12 & 14 – 17 are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The additional elements of “generate the digital content in accordance with the three-dimensional shape data of the subject and a user instruction” in claim 14 and additional elements of “wherein the digital content is registered in a blockchain and an NFT indicating an owner is linked to the digital content” in claim 17 are recited at a high-level of generality, and when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amount to no more than merely generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) & MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of the claims, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with generic computer components that conduct generic computer functions within a certain field of use, and thus are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mintz et al. (US 20110196765 A1).
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 BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. 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.
/BRYAN J KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights