fvoiceNotice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-15 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/26/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: control device that/configured to, storage device is configured to, of claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof – i.e. the claimed computing elements noted above represent generic computing elements.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a method of organizing human activity – commercial interaction and fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: holding virtual space configuration information indication a configuration of a virtual space / an area setting procedure of, when receiving an input of information on setting a partial space in the virtual space, holding the information on setting the partial space as area setting information / an input policy of , when receiving an input of information on a policy executed in the partial space, holding the information on the policy as policy information / an output information management procedure of, generating information to be output to a user and holding the information as policy display pattern information based on the policy in the partial space / a policy procedure of, evaluating the policy based on an action of the user.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a computer system including a control device that executes predetermined processing and a storage device accessible by the control device / performing processing within a virtual space . The system /devices represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. Performing the processing within a virtual space does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Performing the processing within a virtual space does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 15 is directed to a system for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1. Claim 15 performs the claimed limitations using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 2-14 further recite and narrow the abstract idea of claim 1. The claims further recite the additional elements of two-dimensional and three-dimensional spaces and displaying data in the spaces, which does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional element does not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Hwang (20220222379).
As per Claims 1, 15, Hwang discloses a method and system comprising:
a computer system, the computer system including a control device that executes predetermined processing and a storage device accessible by the control device, the storage device holding virtual space configuration information indicating a configuration of a virtual space, the virtual space information management method comprising: (the system/device/storage device represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. At least: para 9, 42 – system/device/storage device; at least para 84 – virtual space configuration)
an area setting procedure of, by the control device, when receiving an input of information on setting a partial space in the virtual space, holding the information on setting the partial space in the storage device as area setting information; (at least para 189 – software modules [procedure]; at least para 20, 57, abstract – generating a virtual world space, including areas; at least para 47, 86, 37, 40 – storing data in databases/servers)
an input policy management procedure of, by the control device, when receiving an input of information on a policy executed in the partial space, holding the information on the policy in the storage device as policy information; (at least para 189 – software modules [procedure]; at least para 20, 57, abstract – generating a virtual world space, including areas; at least para 47, 86, 37, 40 – storing data in databases/servers; the virtual world comprises policy data , including policy for each virtual world space/area – at least para 50, 77; tracking interaction data with objects deployed in the virtual world spaces – at least para 80)
an output information management procedure of, by the control device, generating information to be output to a user of the virtual space and holding the information in the storage device as policy display pattern information based on the policy in the partial space; (at least para 189 – software modules [procedure]; at least para 89 – the remaining claimed limitations)
and a policy evaluation procedure of, by the control device, evaluating the policy based on an action of the user of the virtual space in the virtual space. (at least para 189 – software modules [procedure]; at least para 89 – the remaining claimed limitations; track user interaction data in the virtual space – at least para 178-179, 181)
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 2, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Hwang (20220222379) in further view of Matrosov (JP2021099757A).
As per Claim 2, Hwang teaches:
In the area setting procedure, the control device sets a plurality of the partial spaces ( at least: para 48, 51, 52)
In the input policy management procedure, the control device stores, as the policy information, information on a plurality of the policies executed in the plurality of partial spaces (at least: para 50, 88, 104)
Hwang teaches policies executed in each o the partial spaces, and presentation items in the partial spaces, as noted above, and Matrosov further teaches:
The policy executed…is a comparison test of outputting a plurality of presentation items (at least: page 9/13: “As a method of analyzing the user's interests described above, for example, an A / B test can be performed. In the conventional A / B test, it was necessary to present two comparison targets to the user, so at least two impressions were required, but A of multiple colors, models, shooting angles, etc. in one content. Since both / B can be incorporated, only one content can be delivered to present a plurality of conditions, and the amount of information obtained by one impression increases. That is, A / Besting is possible within one content.”
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Hwang’s existing features, with Matrosov’s feature of the policy executed…is a comparison test of outputting a plurality of presentation items , to analyze a user’s interests and behavioral data – Matrosov, page 1- abstract . Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Hwang in view of Matrosov further teach:
in the output information management procedure, the control device generates the information to be output to the user of the virtual space such that any one of the plurality of presentation items is output to each of a plurality of users of the virtual space in each of the partial spaces. (Hwang teaches presenting data in partial spaces to users, as noted above; Matrosov teaches outputting the presentation items to users – at least: page 1 – abstract and “ An event in which content information is executed and displayed on the terminal, and an event that occurs as a result of a change in the display of the displayed content information based on the operation received on the terminal is received and stored as event history information in chronological order. Receiving means and Analyze the operation content received by the terminal using at least one of the frequency, sum, average, difference, multiplication value, ratio, ratio, integral value, differential value, and a combination thereof of any event in the event history information. Analytical means to do An event analysis program that functions as an analysis result output means that outputs the analysis results of the analysis means. The event analysis program according to claim 1, wherein the analysis means analyzes the operation content received by the terminal by using the combination of the event history information. The event analysis program according to claim 1 or 2, wherein the analysis means analyzes the operation content received by the terminal using the permutation of the event history information. The event analysis program according to any one of claims 1-3, wherein the analysis means analyzes the operation content received by the terminal using the overlapping sequence of the event history information. The event according to any one of claims 1-4, wherein the analysis result output means outputs the analysis result to the terminal and changes the display of the content information executed by the terminal based on the analysis result. Analysis program. An event in which content information is executed and displayed on the terminal, and an event that occurs as a result of a change in the display of the displayed content information based on the operation received on the terminal is received and stored as event history information in chronological order. Receiving means and Analyze the operation content received by the terminal using at least one of the frequency, sum, average, difference, multiplication value, ratio, ratio, integral value, differential value, and a combination thereof of any event in the event history information. Analytical means to do An information processing device having an analysis result output means for outputting the analysis result of the analysis means. A terminal that executes content information, performs display processing, changes the display of the displayed content information based on the received operation, and outputs an event that occurs as a result of the display change.”
As per Claim 6, Hwang in view of Matrosov teach:
wherein each of the plurality of partial spaces is any one of a two-dimensional partial space in the virtual space, a three-dimensional partial space in the virtual space (Hwang, at least: abstract)
the information on the plurality of policies includes, as information on the presentation items, any one of information on an image displayed in the two-dimensional partial space in the virtual space, information on a three- dimensional object displayed in the three-dimensional partial space in the virtual space… , and the information on the plurality of policies is input by different inputters. (Hwang, at least: abstract; service providers/designers that provide data to the system- at least para 3, 49 ,and para 191: “Accordingly, other implementations, other embodiments, and the equivalents of the claims belong to the scope of the claims.“, thus teaching different inputters)
Claims 7 , 9 , 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Hwang (20220222379) in further view of Matrosov (JP2021099757A), in even further view of Katsumaru (
JP2016071481A).
As per Claim 7, Hwang teaches the information on the plurality of policies includes information on the presentation items, as noted above, and Katsumaru teaches:
The information …includes a data aggregation condition in the comparison test, an evaluation test, and an end condition. (at least: page 5/8: “In order to perform weighting that is more appropriate and more realistic, the degree-of-match calculation unit 12 may perform weighting by applying user feedback in the AB test. Here, the AB test is to prepare advertisements A and B for the purpose of advertising effect in web advertisements, etc., and user feedback (selection. In general, when A is shown and when B is shown) Click) to determine superiority or inferiority. The travel plan output by the travel plan output unit 13 is given a rank according to the degree of coincidence and given a score according to the degree of rank, and the degree of coincidence calculation unit 12 gives the user feedback in the AB test for weighting. When applying, weighting based on the points given to the travel plan selected by the user in the AB test may be performed.”)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Hwang’s existing features, combined with Matrosov’s existing feature , with Katsumaru’s feature of the information …includes a data aggregation condition in the comparison test, an evaluation test, and an end condition, to use the A/B test to prepare content – Katsumaro, page 5/8.
Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 9, Hwang in view of Matrosov in further view of Katsumaru teaches:
includes a condition for aggregating the users of the virtual space participated in each of the plurality of policies, the evaluation item includes information indicating an action of the user of the virtual space serving as a criterion for evaluation for each of the plurality of policies, and in the policy evaluation procedure, the control device aggregates the number of users participated in the policy and the number of users performed the action serving as the criterion for evaluation among the plurality of users of the virtual space based on an action log of the plurality of users of the virtual space, and outputs an evaluation result based on the aggregated number of the users. (Katsumaru, at least: page 5/8: “Step 2: Divide users into two groups, group A and group B.Step 3: Present each travel plan to the user.The group A is displayed with a weighted WA and the group B is displayed with a weighted WB.Step 3 provides a certain period, for example, one week.Step 4: Calculate feedback obtained from the user.The feedback here is a numerical value indicating how much the user considers WA or WB as appropriate. Basically, the result of WA and WB is given superiority or inferiority by the point addition method.-Points are added only when the user selects a travel plan from the ranking results of the travel plans and makes some changes such as adding a spot to the travel plan being edited by the user.・ Since it is selected for the geographical feature of the travel plan (the spots that make up the trip plan) and the range of interest of the user, it is displayed on the map and the user decides that it is good (added to his travel plan) Add a point (the name of the travel plan is displayed, and clicking it does not add a point).”, page2/8: “According to such a travel plan output system, area information related to the area viewed by the user on the map is acquired, and the degree of coincidence with the acquired area information is calculated for the stored travel plan. A travel plan is output based on the degree of match. As described above, only the area information related to the area viewed by the user on the map is acquired, and the user does not need to manually input detailed search conditions. The degree of match is automatically calculated, and a travel plan is output based on the calculated degree of match. That is, it is possible to easily output a travel plan that matches the area that the user is paying attention to. In the travel plan output system of the present invention, the calculation means may calculate the degree of match based on a ratio in which the area indicated by the area information includes spot position information included in the travel plan. By adopting such a configuration, for example, it is possible to easily output a travel plan in which the area indicated by the area information includes more location information of spots included in the travel plan, that is, a high degree of match.”)
As per Claim 11, Hwang in view of Matrosov in further view of Katsumaru teach:
the condition for aggregating the participated users of the virtual space includes information indicating an attribute of the user of the virtual space to be aggregated. (Katsumaru, at least: page 5/8: “Step 2: Divide users into two groups, group A and group B.Step 3: Present each travel plan to the user.The group A is displayed with a weighted WA and the group B is displayed with a weighted WB.Step 3 provides a certain period, for example, one week.Step 4: Calculate feedback obtained from the user.The feedback here is a numerical value indicating how much the user considers WA or WB as appropriate. Basically, the result of WA and WB is given superiority or inferiority by the point addition method.-Points are added only when the user selects a travel plan from the ranking results of the travel plans and makes some changes such as adding a spot to the travel plan being edited by the user.・ Since it is selected for the geographical feature of the travel plan (the spots that make up the trip plan) and the range of interest of the user, it is displayed on the map and the user decides that it is good (added to his travel plan) Add a point (the name of the travel plan is displayed, and clicking it does not add a point).”, page2/8: “According to such a travel plan output system, area information related to the area viewed by the user on the map is acquired, and the degree of coincidence with the acquired area information is calculated for the stored travel plan. A travel plan is output based on the degree of match. As described above, only the area information related to the area viewed by the user on the map is acquired, and the user does not need to manually input detailed search conditions. The degree of match is automatically calculated, and a travel plan is output based on the calculated degree of match. That is, it is possible to easily output a travel plan that matches the area that the user is paying attention to. In the travel plan output system of the present invention, the calculation means may calculate the degree of match based on a ratio in which the area indicated by the area information includes spot position information included in the travel plan. By adopting such a configuration, for example, it is possible to easily output a travel plan in which the area indicated by the area information includes more location information of spots included in the travel plan, that is, a high degree of match.”)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Hwang (20220222379) in further view of Matrosov (JP2021099757A), in further view of Katsumaru (
JP2016071481A), in even further view of Wang (CN113744176A).
As per Claim 8, Hwang teaches the information on the plurality of policies includes information on the presentation items and related to partial spaces, as noted above, and Wang further teaches:
when the policy information includes information on a plurality of policies executed in the same partial space, the policy information includes information indicating an execution order of the plurality of policies, and in the policy evaluation procedure, the control device executes and evaluates the plurality of policies in order based on the information indicating the execution order. (at least: page 1/10: abstract, page 5/10: “In the embodiment of the specification, an image sample and a plurality of image enhancement strategies are obtained, wherein the image sample comprises an image sample randomly extracted from an image library and an image sample selected based on requirements; the number of the image enhancement strategies can be set according to experience, and can also be freely adjusted according to application scenes. Several image enhancement strategies include, but are not limited to, rotation transformations, flipping transformations, scaling transformations, translation transformations, contrast transformations, color transformations, and the like. And classifying a plurality of image enhancement strategies based on functions, wherein the categories comprise a color space enhancement strategy, a geometric space enhancement strategy, a matting enhancement strategy and the like. S103: and carrying out priority sequencing based on the categories of the plurality of image enhancement strategies to obtain a preset sequence. In the embodiment of the present specification, the predetermined sequence includes executing the color space enhancement policy first, then executing the geometric space policy, and finally executing the matting enhancement policy. And executing according to a preset sequence, and converting when the image sample executes the geometric space strategy and is not easy to cause blank, when the image sample preferentially executes the color space enhancement strategy. S104: and randomly selecting target enhancement strategies meeting the preset number from the plurality of image enhancement strategies.”)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Hwang’s existing features, combined with Matrosov’s existing feature , combined with Katsumaru’s existing feature , with Wang’s feature of when the policy information includes information on a plurality of policies executed in the same partial space, the policy information includes information indicating an execution order of the plurality of policies, and in the policy evaluation procedure, the control device executes and evaluates the plurality of policies in order based on the information indicating the execution order, to reduce the number of parameters needing
manual adjustment for image data enhancement, and reduce the application threshold of image
data enhancement – Wang, page 1: abstract. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Hwang (20220222379) in further view of Matrosov (JP2021099757A), in further view of Katsumaru (
JP2016071481A), in even further view of Official Notice.
As per Claim 12, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the art to award predetermined points to users of a virtual space, based on a policy (i.e. rule/criteria/guideline) – see the various online websites and apps that award points to viewers of content or users that view content and perform certain actions according to preset criteria/policy.
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Hwang’s existing features, combined with Matrosov’s existing feature , combined with Katsumaru’s existing feature , to include the feature noted above returned of Examiner’s Official Notice, because all the claimed elements/steps were known in the prior art
and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements/steps as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Hwang (20220222379) in further view of Matrosov (JP2021099757A), in even further view of Owa (
JP2003076906A).
As per Claim 13, Hwang teaches the area setting information, as noted above, and Owa teaches:
the information includes, for each of the plurality of partial spaces, information on a position and a size of the partial space, and a standard and a utilization price of the presentation item. (using the size of the moving image arranged in the virtual space to set a usage fee, and requesting a reupload (correction such that a standard is satisfied) when the size is excessive – at least: page 9/13: “
In addition, in the community system according to the present embodiment, in order to capture the number of users required to forma community, the login itself is not charged, and participation in the community is released free of charge. Then, only when the privilege is given to the user in the community service, the fee is charged as a compensation. Here, the “privilege given to the user” means, for example, It is a right to display a desired image in the shared virtual space. Then, a charge is made different depending on the size of the image displayed in the shared virtual space. The image includes not only a still image (including a document image) but also a moving image. Next, the setting of the usage fee that differs depending on the size of the image will be specifically described with reference to FIG. FIG. 10 shows images of different sizes, and the larger the image size, the higher the usage fee is set. More specifically, for example, A usage fee of 200 yen per week for the larger image 10a and 100 yen per week for the smaller image 10b is collected. As a result, it is possible to set a usage fee charged according to the size of the image displayed on the shared virtual space. Next, an item purchase screen used when the user purchases an item for displaying an image will be described with reference to FIG. Items for decorating this image are prepared corresponding to usage charges set for each size of the three types of images. As shown in FIG. 11, as the type of image size, for example, the image size is10K.Images of up to B, images of over 10 KB to 50 KB, and images of over 50 KB to 100 KB are prepared. The usage fee for one week is set to 100 yen, 150 yen, and 200 yen for each image corresponding to each type. Here, when an item for displaying an image is purchased, "film" is added to the inventory list displayed in the inventory display area 524 of FIG.)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Hwang’s existing features, combined with Matrosov’s existing feature , with Owa’s feature of the information includes, for each of the plurality of partial spaces, information on a position and a size of the partial space, and a standard and a utilization price of the presentation item, to allow for making a different charge depending on the image size displayed in the virtual space – Owa, page 9.
Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 3, 4, 5, 10, 14.
As noted above, Hwang (20220222379) in view of Matrosov (JP2021099757A) in even further view of Katsumaru ( JP2016071481A) teach the combination of claimed elements of pending claims 1, 2, 7, 9; however, they lack the combination of claimed elements of pending claims 3, 4, 5, 10, 14.
When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not
suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fukuda (20090172089) teaches a virtual space including a plurality of islands, location of the islands is mapped in two dimensions, preferably using multidimensional scaling such as Kruskal method, to keep the order of the distances between the feature vector including the information of profile and preference of the user and the feature vectors including the profiles and event information of the respective islands. The map server uses the mapping information to provide the user with the islands arranged in a manner more conforming to the user's feature vector, which allows the user to conveniently visit the islands suited to the user's preference, and hence, increases utilization of the virtual space. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of pending claims 1/15.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandru Cirnu whose telephone number is (571) 272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. 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, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
6/5/2026
Prosecution Insights