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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 05/17/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/16/2025 and 05/05/2026 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAWASE et al (U.S.2019/0067919) and further in view KIM et al (U.S. 2014/0101535).
1. As per claims 1,13 Kawase disclosed a display control method comprising: displaying, on a same display screen, first data and second data [FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example of the operation guide screen. An operation guide screen 50 shown in FIG. 2 is configured that a procedure display region 100 is displayed on the left side, a wiring position display region 200 is displayed on the right side, and a forward button 51 for going forward and changing the content displayed on the operation guide screen 50 and a back button 52 for going back and changing the content displayed on the operation guide screen 50 are displayed at the center] (Paragraph. 0037), both of
which represent a circuit and are associated with each other [The display means 21 displays, on a screen of the display section 5, a procedure display region for displaying wiring route numbers indicating the wire harness wiring route order and one or more wiring procedure selection buttons provided for each wiring route number so as to correspond to the wire harness wiring procedure order, and a wiring position display region for displaying a wiring position of the wire harness which corresponds to the selected wiring procedure selection button] (Paragraph. 0030),
However, Kawase did not explicitly disclose displaying, on the display screen, an operation of selecting a selection part in both of the first data and the second data, wherein the first data and the second data have different display modes.
In the same field of endeavor Kim disclosed, “The foregoing and/or other features and utilities of the present inventive concept also provide a multi-display apparatus including a first body having a first display, a second body having a second display, and a controller configured to display a first web browsing screen on the first display, to generate a second web browsing screen in response to a selection of an object in the first web browsing screen, and to display the second web browsing screen on the second display (Paragraph. 0042). FIGS. 11 to 15 are perspective views illustrating screen modes configured to vary according to a relative angle between a first body and a second body of a multi-display apparatus according to an exemplary embodiment of the present inventive concept (Paragraph. 0054).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data was made to have incorporated The foregoing and/or other features and utilities of the present inventive concept also provide a multi-display apparatus including a first body having a first display, a second body having a second display, and a controller configured to display a first web browsing screen on the first display, to generate a second web browsing screen in response to a selection of an object in the first web browsing screen, and to display the second web browsing screen on the second display. FIGS. 11 to 15 are perspective views illustrating screen modes configured to vary according to a relative angle between a first body and a second body of a multi-display apparatus according to an exemplary embodiment of the present inventive concept as taught by Kim in the method and system of Kawase to make it efficient to by improving the display modes.
3. As per claim 3 Kawase-Kim disclosed, wherein the selection part is highlighted in the first data and the second data (Kawase, Paragraph.0030).
4. As per claim 4 Kawase-Kim disclosed, wherein, when the selection part is selected in one of the first data and the second data, the selection part is enlarged and reflected displayed in both of the first data and the second data (Kim, Paragraph. 0120). Claim 4 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
5. As per claim 5 Kawase-Kim disclosed, wherein the selection part is selectable in the minimum constituent unit in the first data and the second data (Kim, Paragraph. 0108). Claim 5 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
6. As per claim 6 Kawase-Kim disclosed, wherein the selection part is selectable in a predetermined range unit in the first data and the second data (Kim, Paragraph. 0114). Claim 6 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
7. As per claim 7 Kawase-Kim disclosed, wherein: operation information related to an operation of selecting the selection part is output to each of a first display processing unit that displays the first data and a second display processing unit that displays the second data (Kim, Paragraph. 0114), the first display processing unit reflects displays the operation information in the first data, and the second display processing unit reflects displays the operation information in the second data (Kim, Paragraph. 0132). Claim 7 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
8. As per claim 8 Kawase-Kim disclosed, wherein the operation information is specified by a URL (Kim, Paragraph. 0407). Claim 8 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
9. As per claim 9 Kawase-Kim disclosed, further comprising- displaying, on the display screen, third data corresponding to the first data and the second data (Kim, Paragraph. 0118).
10. As per claim 10 Kawase-Kim disclosed, Kawase-Kim disclosed, wherein a layout of the first data and the second data in the display screen is changed by a display medium (Kim, Paragraph. 0119).
11. As per claim 11 Kawase-Kim disclosed, further comprising- receiving the first data and the second data by a user terminal and storing the first data and the second data in a storage unit of the user terminal as reception data (Kim, Paragraph. 0099).
12. As per claim 12 Kawase-Kim disclosed, further comprising performing presentation in accordance with an elapsed time after the reception data is received (Kim, Paragraph. 0297).
13. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAWASE et al (U.S.2019/0067919), KIM et al (U.S. 2014/0101535) and further in view of Shropshire (U.S. 7,107,197).
As per claim 14 Kawase-Kim did not explicitly disclose, “wherein the first data is a three-dimensional model data representing a machine body and a circuit routed in the machine body, and the second data is wiring data representing the circuit and displayed as two-dimensional circuit diagram”.
In the same field of endeavor Shropshire disclosed, “In a system in accordance with the invention, basic information may come from various sources. There may be a three-dimensional design and an electrical logic design which are combined to form a two-dimensional harness design. The system may produce various reports, such as costing reports, purchasing reports, sales quotes and so forth. A form board drawing may be produced, and information created concerning wire cutting, MRP, ERP (Engineering Resources Planning), testing equipment and automated assembly (col. 6, lines 58-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing was made to have incorporated in a system in accordance with the invention, basic information may come from various sources. There may be a three-dimensional design and an electrical logic design which are combined to form a two-dimensional harness design. The system may produce various reports, such as costing reports, purchasing reports, sales quotes and so forth. A form board drawing may be produced, and information created concerning wire cutting, MRP, ERP (Engineering Resources Planning), testing equipment and automated assembly as taught by Shropshire in the method and system of Kawase-Kim to make it efficient to by improving the display modes.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
14. Claims 1, 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method and claim 13 is directed to a system. Therefore, claims 1 and 13 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an extra solution activity (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A display control method comprising:
displaying, on a same display screen, first data and second data, both of which represent a circuit and are associated with each other,
displaying on the display screen, an operation of selecting a selection part in both of the first data and the second data, the operation being performed on one of the first data and the second data wherein the first data and the second data have different display modes.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “extra solution activity” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, even with these extra steps, the claim is still directed to an abstract idea and lacks an eligible practical application or an inventive concept. It appears claims 1,3-14 have insignificant extra solution activity. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A display control system comprising;
a display control unit that displays, on a same display screen, first data and second data, both of which represent a circuit and are associated with each other,
an operation of selecting a selection part in both of the first data and the second data, the operation being performed on one of the first data and the second data; wherein the display control unit makes a display mode different between the first data and the second data.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and casting steps from / using sensor system(s) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and casting rays to detect information for use in the determining and other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The disqualifying, associating and sending steps are also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1 and 13 further recite “a display control system comprising: a display control unit that displays” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. In order to expedite prosecution, Examiner also notes that the mere recitation of “first and second data, both of which represent a circuit and are associated with each other” in claim 1 and “first data and second data, both of which represent a circuit and are associated with each other” in claim 13 are not significant enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since the claims do not include a positive recitation of “wherein the autonomous traveling modes” (if supported by the specification, such limitation is an example of a significant enough limitation to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving information and values/features detecting/detectable are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “creating the first map …,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performance which in the instant application is creating a map is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-12 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 13.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-13 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
15. Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Response to applicant’s argument as follows.
A. Applicant argued that prior art did not disclose, “displaying, on the display screen, an operation of selecting a selection part in both on the first data and the second data, the operation being performed on one of the first data and the second data”.
As to applicant’s argument KIM disclosed, “The foregoing and/or other features and utilities of the present inventive concept also provide a multi-display apparatus including a first body having a first display, a second body having a second display, and a controller configured to display a first web browsing screen on the first display, to generate a second web browsing screen in response to a selection of an object in the first web browsing screen, and to display the second web browsing screen on the second display” (Paragraph. 0042).
B. Applicant argued that rejections of claims 1, 3-14 under 101 is in error.
As to applicant’s argument Examiner 101 rejection of claims 1, 3-14 incorporates extra solution activity under 101. Meaning the independent claims 1 and 13 claim steps that occur before or after the claim abstract idea-such as merely collecting input data, storing it, displaying a result or sending a notification but do not make the claim patent-eligible.
Conclusion
16. 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 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.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the
examiner should be directed to Adnan Mirza whose telephone number is (571)-272-3885.
18. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday during normal
business hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the
examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313)-446-4821.
19. 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 un published 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).
/ADNAN M MIRZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
