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 .
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.
Claim Status
Cancel claims 1-27. Claims 28-41 pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
It is the position of the examiner the claims are eligible. Sending the digital image to a remote health management system having a reader and processing the digital image at the reader to determine a sensor reading representative of the numeric values in the segmented display of the sensor device. These limitations are not performed in the mind or a mathematical concept.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for, processing means region of interest means analyzing means in claim 28 and 30-41.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 28-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,430,236. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant patent ‘236 fully discloses features of the application see below:
Regarding claim 28 patent ‘236 discloses
means for capturing a digital image of a segmented display of numeric values shown on a sensor device (note claim 1, col. 21 lines 5-6);
means having a reader (note claim 1, col. 21 lines 7-8);
means for storing the digital image in a computer-readable memory (note claim 1, col. 21 lines 9-10); and
means for processing the digital image at the reader to determine a sensor reading representative of the numeric values in the segmented display of the sensor device (note col. 21 lines 11-13).
Regarding claim 29 patent ‘236 discloses,
Wherein the segmented display comprises a seven-segment display where seven segments are displayed on or off to represent particular numeric values between 0 and 9 (note claim 2).
Regarding claim 30 patent ‘236 discloses,
Wherein the processing means includes means for identifying a region of interest and clustering digits (note claim 3).
Regarding claim 31 patent ‘236 discloses,
Wherein the identifying a region of interest means includes means for object detection (note claim (note claim 4).
Regarding claim 32 patent ‘236 discloses,
means for training a model having parameters, and wherein the processing means includes means for minimizing a loss function and hyperparameter tuning of parameters in the model (note claim 5).
Regarding claim 33 patent ‘236 discloses,
Wherein the processing means includes:
means for analyzing the digital image using optical character recognition to determine a first array of data (note claim 1, col. 21 lines 15-16);
means for analyzing the digital image using a trained machine learning (ML) model to determine a second array of data (note claim 1, col. 21 lines 17-19); and
means for evaluating the first and second arrays of data to obtain the sensor reading representative of the numeric values in the segmented display of the sensor device (note claim 1, col 21 lines 20-22).
Regarding claim 34 patent ‘236 discloses,
Wherein the evaluating means includes:
means for comparing the first and second arrays of data to determine whether data in the first and second arrays is identical or empty (note claim 6 col. 21 line 41-43);
means for outputting an output array of data having data from the first or second array of data when identical and from the first or second array that is not empty (note claim 6 col. 21 line col. 45-48); and
means for arbitrating the first and second arrays of data according to test criteria to obtain an output array of data when the comparing means determines the first and second arrays of data are not identical and empty (note claim 6, col. 21 lines 51-52)
Regarding claim 35 patent ‘236 discloses,
Means for temporarily saving the obtained output array of data in computer- readable memory along with an identifier associated with the digital image (note claim 7).
Regarding claim 36 patent ‘236 discloses,
Means for displaying the sensor reading information as numeric values along with the associated digital image for confirmation (note claim 8, col. 21 lines 59-61); and
means for enabling a user to edit or select the numeric values and submit an input indicative of user confirmation (note claim 8, col. 21 lines 62-63).
Regarding claim 37 patent ‘236 discloses,
Means for comparing the user confirmation input and the temporarily saved output array of data (note claim 9 col. 21 lines 66-67);
means for checking whether the comparison is passed or not passed (note claim 9 col. 22 lines 1);
means for flagging the sensor reading information of the output array of data for administrative review when the comparison is not passed (note claim 9, col. 22 lines 2-4); and
means for saving the sensor reading information of the output array of data in a record of the database (note claim 9, col. 22 lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 38 patent ‘236 discloses,
Means for training the ML engine with a training dataset of images to obtain the trained ML model (note claim 10).
Regarding claim 39 patent ‘236 discloses,
Wherein the training dataset includes base images of different sensor reading devices having segmented numeral displays, and the training means includes: means for augmenting base images in the training dataset to generate a synthetic training dataset that includes base augmentations representative of one or more of thefollowing augmentations: Horizontal Flip, Vertical Flip, Shift-Scale-Rotate, Random- Brightness-Contrast, Random Sun Flare, Random Fog, or Blur of each base image in the training dataset (note claim 11).
Regarding claim 40 patent ‘236 discloses,
Wherein the training means includes: means for applying images in the training dataset to a ML engine (note claim 12, col. 22 lines 24);
means for evaluating candidate models using objection detection (note claim 12 , col. 22 lines 25), means for minimizing a loss function and hyper-parameters to obtain the trained ML model (note claim 12, col. 22 lines 27-28)
Regarding claim 41 patent ‘236 discloses,
Wherein the analyzing means for the digital image using the trained ML model includes means for passing to the digital image with an API call to a Detectron2Go library determine the second array of data (note claim 13).
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 28-32are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Paik et al (11,164,045).
Regarding claim 28 Paik discloses
Means for capturing a digital image of a segmented display of numeric values shown on a sensor device; (note col. 14 lines 25-30, image segmentation)
Means for sending the digital image to a remote health management system having a reader (note col. 14 lines 60-67, intelligent worklist management communication prioritization);
Means for storing the digital image in a computer-readably memory (note col. 39, lines 37-40 and 47-55, worklist management system, view images and generated stored in database); and
Means for processing the digital image at the reader to determine a sensor reading representative of the numeric values in the segmented display of the sensor device (note col. 41 lines 33-40).
Regarding claim 29 Paik discloses,
Wherein the segmented display comprises a seven-segment display where seven segments are displayed on or off to represent particular numeric values between 0 and 9 (note col. 34 lines 8-19, examiner interprets as labeled segmentation map).
Regarding claim 30 Paik discloses,
Wherein the processing means includes identifying a region of interest (note col. 30 lines 24-35, lines cite input image region of interest and selecting region of interest) and clustering digits
Regarding claim 31 Paik discloses,
Wherein the identifying a region of interest means includes means for object detection (note col. 16 lines 42-47, regions corresponding to objects).
Regarding claim 32 Paik discloses
Means for Training a model having parameters, and wherein the processing includes minimizing a loss function and hyperparameter tuning of parameters in the model (note col. 20 lines 10-12, during training targets used for computing the loss function).
Related Prior Art
Rao (8,554,195) for sending the digital image to a remote health management system (note col. 3 lines 16-30)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims limitation of claims 33 would place the application in condition. The features ae consistent with features of patent 11430236 allowable subject matter. Claims 34-41 depend on claim 33.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY M DESIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-7449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-3:00pm.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
G.D.
March 7, 2026
/GREGORY M DESIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676