DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is a response to an amendment/arguments filed on 2/3/2026 which was in response to the office action mailed on 11/6/2025 (hereinafter the prior office action).
Claim(s) 1, 4-10 and 12 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 4-10 and 12 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 11 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are independent.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome prior Specification and Claim objection(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-10 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The arguments are moot because the newly amended limitation argued upon are taught by the combination of Harmon and Mukhopadhyay rather than by Harmon alone.
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 2/3/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states in Pg. 7-9 in “Remarks” that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea because of a practical application of Applicant’s invention in the form of an improvement in a technical field.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because, as outlined in the 103 rejection below, the claimed invention is not an improvement because prior art already teaches Applicant’s claimed invention. Thus, the argument that Applicant’s invention is an improvement in a technological field cannot be made, and thus the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 2/2/2026 have been 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:
all of the claim limitations in claims 1 and 4-10 that recite modules configured to perform some function.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (specifically, an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance, claim(s) 1-12 are eligible as per the Step 1 (statutory) analysis.
However, as per the Step 2A Prong One (abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon) analysis, the claimed invention in claim(s) 1 is directed to a judicial exception (specifically, an abstract idea); this is because the claim recites “an image acquisition module configured to collect image information of the meter panel,” which is data gathering/receiving, and “a meter type identification module configured to identify the figure identification code from image information collected by the image acquisition module; a text detection module configured to identify a display area of the target data based on a display area of the figure identification code; and a text identification module configured to perform text identification on image information in a display area of the target data”, which are transforming/manipulating data and all of which fall under a sub-category of abstract ideas, namely mental processes.
As per the Step 2A Prong Two (practical application) analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claim(s) 1-12 simply recite data gathering and manipulation which are not incorporated into any such practical application which applies the gathered and manipulated data of collected “image information” in which the system “identifies display area and perform text identification” to perform any further action.
As per the Step 2B (significantly more) analysis, claim(s) 1-12 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims only recite functional units where the functions (of gather and manipulating data) are related to one another, without the recitation of any non-generic hardware that incorporates such data gathering and manipulation.
As for claim 4, which depends on claim 3, no further limitation is recited that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, nor are any additional elements included that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite to send the result of the identification to a device which is no more than an extra-solution activity, and not a practical application, neither something amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for claim 5, which depends on claim 3, no further limitation is recited that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, nor are any additional elements included that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite the storing of information in a database.
As for claim 6, which depends on claim 3, no further limitation is recited that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, nor are any additional elements included that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite adjusting of angle which is part of the identification, i.e. nothing more than the judicial exception of transforming/manipulating data, i.e. mental processes.
As for claim 7, which depends on claim 6, no further limitation is recited that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, nor are any additional elements included that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely specify the angle adjustment in claim 6.
As for claim 8, which depends on claim 3, no further limitation is recited that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, nor are any additional elements included that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite outputting the identified text which is no more than an extra-solution activity, and not a practical application, neither something amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for claim 9, which depends on claim 3, no further limitation is recited that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, nor are any additional elements included that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely specify the type of identification.
As for claim 10 which depends on claim 3, no further limitation is recited that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, nor are any additional elements included that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite the type of image which is to be identified.
As for claim 12, it recites limitations similar to claim 3, and is the method claim version of the system claim 3, and thus claim 12 also does not recite any further limitation that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, nor are any additional elements included that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmon et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0116493) (hereinafter “Harmon”) in view of Mukhopadhyay et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0074169) (hereinafter “Mukhopadhyay”).
Regarding claim 1 and corresponding process claim 12, Harmon teaches a meter display identification system for identifying measurement data displayed in a data display area on a meter panel of a meter, wherein the meter panel includes the data display area for displaying the measurement data and a figure identification code including type information, (Para. 2, 15 - - measuring instrument, i.e. meter, has display system, where display system information is identified; Para. 14 - - code used to indicate identifying information, etc., i.e. figure identification code)
the meter display identification system comprising: an image acquisition module configured to collect image information of the meter panel, (Para. 13 - - camera is used to acquire image of meter/instrument display panel)
including the figure identification code and the data display area; (Fig. 1 - - imaging area includes display area of identification code 102 and of meter panel 101)
a meter type identification module configured to identify the figure identification code from the image information and to identify a type of the meter; (Para. 14 - - code is used to indicate identifying information, etc., i.e. figure identification code)
a text position detection module configured to identify…a code display…of the figure identification code and the data display area based on the type of the meter and to identify the data display area…; (Para. 16, 21 - - figure identification code is used to help identify/detect target data displayed on instrument/meter panel)
and a text identification module configured to perform text identification on image information in the data display area. (Para. 15 - - OCR is used to recognize/identify/detect text on display panel)
But Harmon does not explicitly teach a relative positional relationship between a code display position being a display position of the figure identification code and the data display area based on the type of the meter and to identify the data display area using the relative positional relationship and the code display area
However, Mukhopadhyay teaches a relative positional relationship between a code display position being a display position of the figure identification code and the data display area based on the type of the meter and to identify the data display area using the relative positional relationship and the code display area (Para. 56 - - relative positioning is used)
Harmon and Mukhopadhyay are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain image recognition in order to accurately identify target information.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Harmon, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Mukhopadhyay.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to intelligently process input image documents to achieve higher accuracy, as suggested by Mukhopadhyay (Para. 8).
Regarding claim 4, Harmon further teaches wherein the image acquisition module is installed in a smart wearable device or a smart mobile device, (Fig. 1 - - smart mobile device 110 is used)
and the text identification module is configured to send a text identification result to the smart wearable device or the smart mobile device. (Para. 24 - - text identification result is sent to smart mobile device 110)
Regarding claim 8, Harmon further teaches a data output module that outputs text identified by the text identification module. (Para. 15 - - OCR is used to recognize/identify/detect text)
Regarding claim 10, Harmon further teaches wherein the figure identification code is a QR code provided adjacent to a meter panel. (Para. 14 - - QR code is used)
Claim(s) 5-7, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmon in view of Mukhopadhyay and further in view of Filler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0331841) (hereinafter “Filler”).
Regarding claim 5, Harmon further teaches a database, wherein the database stores type information of the meter and the relative positional relationship between the code display position and the data display area in association with each other, and the database is obtained…of meters (Para. 22 - - coded data, which can include type information, is used and associated with multiple images, where images include display area of figure identification code and target data, where Mukhopadhyay already taught relative positional relationship as outlined above)
But Harmon and Mukhopadhyay does not explicitly teach by learning of image information…of a plurality of specific types as a reference data set.
However, Filler teaches by learning of image information…of a plurality of specific types as a reference data set. (Para. 244 - - machine learning is used to train regarding specific types as reference)
Harmon and Mukhopadhyay and Filler are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain image recognition in order to accurately identify target information.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Harmon and Mukhopadhyay, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Filler.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to implement high-reliability identification, as suggested by Filler (Para. 35).
Regarding claim 6, Harmon and Mukhopadhyay teach the limitations of the base claim(s).
But Harmon and Mukhopadhyay does not explicitly teach a direction adjustment module for adjusting an angle of inclination or rotation of image information in the data display area.
However, Filler teaches a direction adjustment module for adjusting an angle of inclination or rotation of image information in the data display area. (Para. 70 - - image can be rotated, i.e. rotation of image information is adjusted)
Harmon and Mukhopadhyay and Filler are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain image recognition in order to accurately identify target information.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Harmon and Mukhopadhyay, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Filler.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to implement high-reliability identification, as suggested by Filler (Para. 35).
Regarding claim 7, Filler further teaches wherein the direction adjustment module is configured to adjust an angle of inclination or rotation of image information in the data display area based on an angle of inclination or rotation of the figure identification code. (Para. 70 - - rotation of image information is adjusted based on spatially aligning two image blocks, i.e. first image is rotated based on angle of second image block)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to implement high-reliability identification, as suggested by Filler (Para. 35).
Regarding claim 9, Harmon further teaches wherein an identification result of the text identification module includes a text identification result (Para. 24 - - text identification result is sent to smart mobile device 110)
But Harmon and Mukhopadhyay does not explicitly teach and reliability corresponding to the text identification result.
However, Filler teaches and reliability corresponding to the text identification result. (Para. 130 - - confidence in determination of image, i.e. reliability corresponding to identification result, is reported)
Harmon and Mukhopadhyay and Filler are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain image recognition in order to accurately identify target information.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Harmon and Mukhopadhyay, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Filler.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to implement high-reliability identification, as suggested by Filler (Para. 35).
Regarding claim 11, Harmon and Mukhopadhyay teaches the limitations of the base claim(s).
But Harmon and Mukhopadhyay does not explicitly teach wherein the text detection module is configured to identify size data of a display area of the target data based on size data of a QR code in the image information acquired by the image acquisition module.
However, Filler teaches wherein the text detection module is configured to identify size data of a display area of the target data based on size data of a QR code in the image information acquired by the image acquisition module. (Para. 45 - - size data of target is identified based on size data of watermark; Para. 277 - - QR codes can be used as indicia instead of watermark)
Harmon and Mukhopadhyay and Filler are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain image recognition in order to accurately identify target information.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Harmon and Mukhopadhyay, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Filler.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to implement high-reliability identification, as suggested by Filler (Para. 35).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0102966 by Lev et al., which discloses object identification for portable devices (Title/Abstract).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saad M. Kabir whose telephone number is 571-270-0608 (direct fax number is 571-270-9933). The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays to Fridays 9am to 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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.
/SAAD M KABIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights