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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/31/2023, 04/07/2024, and 10/10/2024, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s amendments, filed August 7, 2025, Examiner withdraws the claim objections, withdraws the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), withdraws the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b), withdraws the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a), upholds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, and upholds the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 7, 2025 with respect to the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and the claim objections, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant amendments resolve the relevant issues. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but are not persuasive. Examiner contends that the activities highlight by Applicant, such as acquiring and then loading parameter configuration data to an oscilloscope, constitute insignificant extra-solution activity. The operations are merely a manner of bringing data into a computer device.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant states that Merg does not teach the claim limitations, amended from dependent claims into the independent claims, however, no particular argument is provided. No particular differences from the disclosure of Merg, nor differences from the combination of Merg and Ma, with respect to the claim limitations, are expressly identified.
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 1-3, 8-9, 11-13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1,
Step 1:
Claim 1 describes “a method” and thus falls under the statutory category of a method
Step 2(a), Prong I:
Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (bold below):
A vehicle inspection method applied to a vehicle inspection system
The method comprising: acquiring information about a to-be-measured vehicle;
acquiring and displaying a measured item to be associated with information about the to-be-measured vehicle;
receiving a user selection operation on the measured item to obtain a selected measured item;
acquiring and displaying measurement guidance information corresponding to the selected measured item to prompt a user to connect the vehicle inspection system to the measured item according to the measurement guidance information;
and measuring the selected measured item, and displaying a signal waveform corresponding to the measured item when a measurement start instruction of a user is received
when a measurement start instruction form a user is received, acquiring parameter configuration data of the selected measured item, calling the oscilloscope to load the parameter configuration data to measure the measured item,
acquiring a measurement signal of the measured item and outputting a signal waveform corresponding to the measurement signal, and displaying the signal waveform output by the oscilloscope
wherein after said displaying the signal waveform corresponding to the measured item, comprising: acquiring predetermined measurement result information corresponding to the parameter configuration data; displaying the predetermined measurement result information so that the a user compares the signal waveform with the predetermined measurement result information to determine a measurement result.
or transmitting the signal waveform to the server, so that the server compares the signal waveform with predetermined measurement result information, and determines a measurement result,
wherein the predetermined measurement result information is predetermined measurement result information corresponding to the parameter configuration data
receiving the measurement result transmitted by the server
or acquiring predetermined measurement result information corresponding to the parameter configuration data; comparing the signal waveform with the predetermined measurement result information to determine a measurement result
The examiner submits that the bold limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, determinations upon data can be practically performed mentally as a routine part of reviewing diagnostic data.
Step 2(a), Prong II:
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, or adding insignificant extra solution activity, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitations beyond the above noted abstract idea are merely insignificant pre-solution activity and post-solution activity, and constitutes mere data gathering and the mere output of information, transmission to and from a server, alongside a display device. Or in other words, merely, “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data” and the use of generic computer technology (“Apply it”). See MPEP 2106.05(f). Step 2(b): The claim does not include additional elements (considered both alone and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, when the elements of the abstract idea are removed, merely collecting and displaying data. Mere instructions to apply an exception using insignificant activity cannot provide an inventive concept. This claim is ineligible.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The collection, display, and manipulation of diagnostic data constitutes conventional activity in vehicle diagnostic technology.
Regarding Claims 2-3 and 8-9,
The claims 2-3 and 8-9 that depend on Claim 1 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claim fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations merely further narrow the abstract idea. In particular, limitations describing a measurement comparison via a server, as this merely applies a mental process via generic computer technology. Altogether, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application.
Regarding Claims 11-13 and 18-19,
Claims 11-13 and 18-19 recite essentially the same limitations to that of Claims 1-9, with the addition of mere computer technology, for example as modules in Claim 10 and as processors,, memory, and a communication bus in Claim 11. Claims 10-19 are thus also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as explained above.
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 1-3, 8-9, 11-13 and 18-19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merg (US 20180201236 A1), further in view of Ma (CN 111858286 A), herein after referred to simply as Merg and Ma.
Regarding Claim 1,
Merg discloses the following limitations,
A vehicle inspection method applied to a vehicle inspection system (Paragraph [0017], “A CVST may be capable of diagnosing, repairing, and/or measuring a variety of parameters or components within a vehicle.”
The method comprising: acquiring information about a to-be-measured vehicle; (610, fig. 6a and 6b; Paragraph [0022], “ The server may determine that an oscilloscope should be used to take current and/or voltage measurements of the vehicle's sound system or component, or wiring of the sound system before providing instructions to take other specific sound measurements. Other examples are described herein.” – an oscilloscope is applied to the vehicle to gather data.)
acquiring and displaying a measured item to be associated with information about the to-be-measured vehicle; (Paragraph [0048], “In some embodiments, the server 118 may be configured to store in the database 120 a plurality of service scenarios defined for the display device 106, 108. A service scenario may include instructions on how to repair, service, or troubleshoot a vehicle based on the vehicle's operating condition or symptoms.” – the service scenario instructs a user how to interact with a particular item to be measured of the vehicle).
receiving a user selection operation on the measured item to obtain a selected measured item; (Paragraph [0018], “The server may then determine the operating condition and provide a service scenario to the display device that matches the operating condition. In other instances, the display device may be able to determine the operating condition and receive a service scenario from the server that matches the operating condition. In some embodiments, the server may send a plurality of service scenarios that may match the operating condition, and the display device may select the appropriate service scenario.” and Paragraph [0081], “The user input device 310 can include one or more electrical circuits that carry electrical signals indicative of input data to the processor 302. As an example, an electrical signal provided to the processor 302 can indicate vehicle manufacturer information, vehicle symptom information, selection of a CYST, selection of a service instruction, or some other input data.” – in the main embodiments of Merg, the diagnostic system itself determines what measured item should be targeted for a diagnostic test. However, as shown above, Merg also includes the ability for a user to manually select a service scenario.)
acquiring and displaying measurement guidance information corresponding to the selected measured item to prompt a user to connect the vehicle inspection system to the measured item according to the measurement guidance information; (Paragraph [0015], “Accordingly, in many applications, it may be beneficial to provide the technician with quick, accurate, and specific instructions on what tool the technician may use to service a particular vehicle, how to configure the tool, and proven tests the technician may perform to diagnose, repair, or service a vehicle.” – the user is given instructions on how to perform the measurement.)
and measuring the selected measured item, and displaying a signal waveform corresponding to the measured item when a measurement start instruction of a user is received (Paragraph [0097], “The screenshot, for example, includes the time per division setting. Additionally, service flow chart 630 includes instructions on how to connect the oscilloscope to the vehicle to take frequency measurements. Further, service flow chart 630 includes expected results to help diagnose or service a vehicle.” – Figure 6A shows a screenshot of an oscilloscope result, so that a user may compare their own oscilloscope display to that of the expected results.)
when a measurement start instruction form a user is received, acquiring parameter configuration data of the selected measured item, calling the oscilloscope to load the parameter configuration data to measure the measured item, (Paragraph [0020], “In some embodiments, the setup instructions may take more of a digital form (e.g., configuration instructions), which may configure various CVSTs described herein with little or no additional user input. For instance, the server may provide digital instructions that configure an oscilloscope with little or no additional user input, thereby allowing a user to take measurements with the oscilloscope without modifying the configuration settings of the oscilloscope.”).
acquiring a measurement signal of the measured item and outputting a signal waveform corresponding to the measurement signal, and displaying the signal waveform output by the oscilloscope (Paragraph [0097], “The screenshot, for example, includes the time per division setting. Additionally, service flow chart 630 includes instructions on how to connect the oscilloscope to the vehicle to take frequency measurements. Further, service flow chart 630 includes expected results to help diagnose or service a vehicle.” – Figure 6A shows a screenshot of an oscilloscope result, so that a user may compare their own oscilloscope display, which outputs a waveform, to that of the expected results.)
wherein after said displaying the signal waveform corresponding to the measured item, comprising: acquiring predetermined measurement result information corresponding to the parameter configuration data; displaying the predetermined measurement result information so that the a user compares the signal waveform with the predetermined measurement result information to determine a measurement result. (Paragraph [0097], “The screenshot, for example, includes the time per division setting. Additionally, service flow chart 630 includes instructions on how to connect the oscilloscope to the vehicle to take frequency measurements. Further, service flow chart 630 includes expected results to help diagnose or service a vehicle.” A user may load, or reload, a result of expected data after performing a test.)
[wherein the vehicle inspection system comprises a server;] (Paragraph [0020], “For instance, the server may provide digital instructions that configure an oscilloscope with little or no additional user input, thereby allowing a user to take measurements with the oscilloscope without modifying the configuration settings of the oscilloscope.”)
or acquiring predetermined measurement result information corresponding to the parameter configuration data; comparing the signal waveform with the predetermined measurement result information to determine a measurement result (Paragraph [0097], “The screenshot, for example, includes the time per division setting. Additionally, service flow chart 630 includes instructions on how to connect the oscilloscope to the vehicle to take frequency measurements. Further, service flow chart 630 includes expected results to help diagnose or service a vehicle.” A user performs the comparison.)
However, Merg does not teach the following limitations,
or transmitting the signal waveform to the server, so that the server compares the signal waveform with predetermined measurement result information, and determines a measurement result,
wherein the predetermined measurement result information is predetermined measurement result information corresponding to the parameter configuration data
receiving the measurement result transmitted by the server
However, this is taught by Ma, which teaches that a diagnostic tool can compare results, create a comparison result, while also presenting the actual and expected results alongside one another for comparison by the user (Page 4“the test control module 12 controls the automatic test on the "version information" test option, may obtain and display test parameters such as version information of the vehicle machine, and determines whether the tested version information matches the written standard version information, if the two are matched, it indicates that the test is qualified, and displays the information that the test is qualified (for example, may display information such as "test parameter, standard parameter, test parameter within the standard parameter range"), and if the two are not matched, it indicates that the test is unqualified, and displays the information that the test is unqualified, for example, may display information such as the test parameter, standard parameter, where the test parameter does not match the standard parameter, and the like.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the diagnostic system of Merg with the automatic comparison of Ma, as this improves the efficiency of testing (Abstract, “The invention can improve the testing efficiency of the car machine and reduce the testing cost.”). Further, the combination could be performed using known methods, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Merg and Ma, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Merg further discloses the following limitation,
wherein the measurement guidance information comprises lead connection guidance (Paragraph [0019], “The server may store service scenarios that include setup instructions on how to configure the oscilloscope and take measurements using the oscilloscope to troubleshoot or repair a vehicle for a particular symptom.” An oscilloscope functions by connecting leads to electrical components, therefore, instructions on how to use an oscilloscope constitutes lead connection guidance [0038].)
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Merg and Ma, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Merg further discloses the following limitation,
wherein the measurement guidance information further comprises at least one of: a measurement purpose, measurement precautions, a measurement start instruction and a measurement guidance diagram (Figure 6a, the page as a whole can be taken as a diagram, as well as containing measurement start instructions, or, alternatively, expected results 630 constitutes a diagram.)
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination of Merg and Ma, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Merg further discloses the following limitations,
saving user-defined measurement guidance information to a vehicle information database according to a user identifier when the user edits measurement guidance information about the selected measured item to generate the user-defined measurement guidance information
said acquiring and display measurement guidance information corresponding to the selected measured item comprises: (Paragraph [0021], “Additionally, the additional information allows a vehicle service technician to create new service scenarios using the test results from diagnosing, repairing, or servicing a vehicle condition. This has the benefit of creating a library or database of proven, successful service scenarios which would reduce significant work time for a vehicle service technician to diagnose, repair, or service a particular vehicle”).
acquiring and displaying user-defined measurement guidance information corresponding to the selected measured item from the vehicle information database according to the user identifier (Paragraph [0099], “In some embodiments, the additional information may be data indicative of a particular CVST a vehicle service technician or a community of users may have used, how the CVST was used, and how successful that test was in diagnosing, repairing, or servicing a vehicle condition.” – custom results may be shared with a community, where an online community entails a collection of user profiles.)
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination of Merg and Ma, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 5. Merg further discloses the following limitations,
saving the user-defined parameter configuration and user-defined predetermined measurement result information to a vehicle information database according to a user identifier when the user edits parameter configuration data of the selected measured item to generate user-defined parameter configuration data, and calls an oscilloscope inside the vehicle inspection system to load the user-defined parameter configuration data to measure the selected measured item to generate user-defined predetermined measurement result information; said acquiring parameter configuration data of the selected measured item comprises: acquiring user-defined parameter configuration data of the selected measured item from the vehicle information database according to the user identifier; the predetermined result information comprises the user-defined predetermined measurement result information according to the identification of the user (Paragraph [0021], “Additionally, the additional information allows a vehicle service technician to create new service scenarios using the test results from diagnosing, repairing, or servicing a vehicle condition. This has the benefit of creating a library or database of proven, successful service scenarios which would reduce significant work time for a vehicle service technician to diagnose, repair, or service a particular vehicle.” - technicians may create their own scenarios. Paragraph [0099], “In some embodiments, the additional information may be data indicative of a particular CVST a vehicle service technician or a community of users may have used, how the CVST was used, and how successful that test was in diagnosing, repairing, or servicing a vehicle condition.” – custom results may be shared with a community. An online community entails multiple user profiles, whereby the server distinguishes users based on a user identifier.)
Regarding Claims 11-13 and 18-19
Claims 11-13 and 18-19 recite essentially the same limitations to those found within Claims 1-3 and 8-9. The combination of Merg and Ma, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claims 1-3 and 8-9. Therefore, Claims 11-13 and 18-19 are also taught.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Boutin (US 7403850 B1) teaches that a diagnostic system can be put into a learning mode to learn a baseline result (Column 10, Lines 15-16, “In step 126, the diagnostic system saves the acquired baseline data during the learn mode,”). Saers (US 20200331483 A1) teaches that a vehicle diagnostic system can be based on a user profile (Paragraph [0109], “Hereby, for example the customer/user of the vehicle may influence/adjust the creation of the diagnostic identifiers, such that the diagnostic identifiers and the retrieved/provided diagnostic information, and thus also the performed diagnosis, may be tailored for the needs of the customer/user.”). Palniappan (US 20020054152 A1) teaches that a menu may explain how the function of a selectable menu option, where the selection performs an action (Paragraph [0033], “The menu structures also provide functions that can be performed within an application, and even instructions on how to perform them.”)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN LYNELLE FURGASON whose telephone number is (571)272-5619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 6 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, Helal Algahaim, can be reached at 571-270-5227. 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.
/K.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666