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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim rejections under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new search and consideration in light of the amendments.
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, 4, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch (US 2014/0277902) in view of ChrisFix (BlueDriver OBD2 Diagnostic Scan Tool Review (reads ABS, Airbag, Tranny Codes)).
Re claim 15, Koch teaches a fleet management computing system coupled to one or more vehicles (vehicle management system 110 and in-vehicle devices 104), the fleet management computing system comprising:
a processor and a memory coupled to the processor (see at least para. 25 for vehicle management system 110 is a physical computing device such as a server), the processor structured to:
receive (i) vehicle data indicative of a least one operating characteristic of one or more vehicles and (ii) one or more fault codes from the one or more vehicles, each of the one or more fault codes having a corresponding component (see at least para. 88 for community diagnostics module 132 receives DTCs and vehicle sensor data directly from the telematics data; see at least para. 17 for DTC correspond to a particular part);
aggregate the one or more fault codes
interpret the vehicle data and the one or more fault codes to determine a potential root cause for the one or more fault codes by comparing vehicle data of a first vehicle of the one or more vehicles to the vehicle data of the one or more vehicles (see at least para. 42 for accessing community prognostics data associated with the identified DTC to identify the cause and solution); and
cause a display device to display a graphical user interface depicting the potential root cause based on the one or more fault codes (see at least para. 45 for output prognostics data associated with the DTC for presentation to a user).
Koch is silent regarding, but ChrisFix teaches:
modify the one or more fault codes to include a unique modifier that indicates the corresponding component (see at least timestamp 4:15 wherein the fault codes are modified by being assigned to a vehicle component); and
aggregate the one or more fault codes based on the corresponding components indicated by the unique modifier (see at least timestamp 4:15 for organizing fault codes according to the corresponding vehicle component).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Koch with the features of ChrisFix because it allows a user to quickly determine at a glance how many trouble codes have been detected and for what vehicle component they are related to.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under similar rationale as claim 15 above for being directed towards similar subject matter.
Re claim 18, Koch further teaches wherein the processor is further structured to:
determine a recommended course of action to address the potential root cause of the one or more fault codes, wherein the recommended course of action is based on the comparison of the vehicle data of the first vehicle to the vehicle data of the one or more vehicles (see at least para. 42 for accessing community prognostics data associated with the identified DTC to identify the cause and solution); and
provide the recommended course of action on the graphical user interface (see at least para. 45 for output prognostics data associated with the DTC for presentation to a user).
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under similar rationale as claim 18 above for being directed towards similar subject matter.
Re claim 20, ChrisFix further teaches wherein each of the corresponding components of the one or more fault codes has a corresponding component category (see at least timestamp 4:15 for organizing fault codes according to the corresponding vehicle component; wherein the vehicle component and vehicle component category are the same); and
wherein the processor is further structured to:
aggregate the one or more fault codes based on the component category (see at least timestamp 4:15 for organizing fault codes according to the corresponding vehicle component); and
provide a depiction on the graphical user interface regarding a number of fault codes related to the corresponding component category (see at least timestamp 4:15 for organizing fault codes according to the corresponding vehicle component).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under similar rationale as claim 20 above for being directed towards similar subject matter.
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch (US 2014/0277902) in view of ChrisFix (“BlueDriver OBD2 Diagnostic Scan Tool Review (reads ABS, Airbag, Tranny Codes)”) and further in view of Rikkola (US 2011/0282630).
Re claim 16, Koch is silent regarding, but Rikkola teaches wherein each of the one or more fault codes has a corresponding priority (see at least Fig. 18A for plurality of fault codes, each with a corresponding severity value); and
wherein the processor is further structured to:
aggregate the one or more fault codes into one of a high priority category or a low priority category based on the corresponding priority of each of the one or more fault codes (see at least para. 77 for severity values above 800 trigger an automatic alert, which would be a high priority; see at least Fig. 18A for display of all fault codes and their corresponding severity values together), and
providing a depiction on the graphical user interface regarding a first quantity of the one or more fault codes in the high priority category and a second quantity of the one or more fault codes in the low priority category (see at least Fig. 18A for graphical representation of fault codes and their corresponding severity values along with a textbox for inputting the severity alert level which would provide a visual indication of the threshold for a high severity fault).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Koch with the features of Rikkola because it allows an operator to be notified via an alert when a fault event with a severity value exceeds a threshold to reduce the risk of further imminent damage.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under similar rationale as claim 16 above for being directed towards similar subject matter.
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 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,515,492 in view of Koch (US 2014/0277902) in view of ChrisFix (BlueDriver OBD2 Diagnostic Scan Tool Review (reads ABS, Airbag, Tranny Codes)).
Re claims 1, 8, and 15, claim 9 of patent ‘492 teaches the claimed invention except for receiving fault codes in addition to vehicle data and using the fault code with vehicle data to determine a root cause; modifying the one or more fault codes to include a unique modifier that indicates the corresponding component; and aggregating the one or more fault codes based on the corresponding components indicated by the unique modifier (see at least timestamp 4:15 for organizing fault codes according to the corresponding vehicle component).
However, Koch teaches receiving fault codes in addition to vehicle data and using the fault code with vehicle data to determine a root cause (see at least para. 17, 42, and 88).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify claim 9 of patent ‘492 with the feature taught by Koch because it allows for use of an additional parameter to be used for matching which will further filter out results to those most relevant.
Modified patent ‘492 is silent regarding, but ChrisFix teaches:
modify the one or more fault codes to include a unique modifier that indicates the corresponding component (see at least timestamp 4:15 wherein the fault codes are modified by being assigned to a vehicle component); and
aggregate the one or more fault codes based on the corresponding components indicated by the unique modifier (see at least timestamp 4:15 for organizing fault codes according to the corresponding vehicle component).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of modified patent ‘492 with the features of ChrisFix because it allows a user to quickly determine at a glance how many trouble codes have been detected and for what vehicle component they are related to.
Re claim 7, 14, and 20, ChrisFix further teaches wherein each of the corresponding components of the one or more fault codes has a corresponding component category (see at least timestamp 4:15 for organizing fault codes according to the corresponding vehicle component; wherein the vehicle component and vehicle component category are the same); and
wherein the processor is further structured to:
aggregate the one or more fault codes based on the component category (see at least timestamp 4:15 for organizing fault codes according to the corresponding vehicle component); and
provide a depiction on the graphical user interface regarding a number of fault codes related to the corresponding component category (see at least timestamp 4:15 for organizing fault codes according to the corresponding vehicle component).
Claims 3-4, 10, 13, and 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,515,492 in view of Koch (US 2014/0277902) in view of ChrisFix (BlueDriver OBD2 Diagnostic Scan Tool Review (reads ABS, Airbag, Tranny Codes)).
Re claim 3, 13, and 17, claim 15 of patent ‘492 in view of modified claim 9 of patent ‘492 as applied above teach the claimed invention.
Re claim 4, 10, and 18, claim 15 of patent ‘492 in view of modified claim 9 of patent ‘492 as applied above teach the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,515,492 in view of Koch (US 2014/0277902) in view of ChrisFix (BlueDriver OBD2 Diagnostic Scan Tool Review (reads ABS, Airbag, Tranny Codes)) and further in view of Rikkola (US 2011/0282630).
Re claim 2, 9, and 16, modified claim 9 of ‘492 is silent regarding, but Rikkola teaches aggregate the one or more fault codes into one of a high priority category or a low priority category based on the corresponding priority of each of the one or more fault codes (see at least para. 77 for severity values above 800 trigger an automatic alert, which would be a high priority; see at least Fig. 18A for display of all fault codes and their corresponding severity values together), and
providing a depiction on the graphical user interface regarding a first quantity of the one or more fault codes in the high priority category and a second quantity of the one or more fault codes in the low priority category (see at least Fig. 18A for graphical representation of fault codes and their corresponding severity values along with a textbox for inputting the severity alert level which would provide a visual indication of the threshold for a high severity fault).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system modified claim 9 of patent ‘492 with the features of Rikkola because it allows an operator to be notified via an alert when a fault event with a severity value exceeds a threshold to reduce the risk of further imminent damage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 11-12, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach the combination of limitations of the claimed invention.
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 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 ROBERT NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4PM ET.
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, ANNA MOMPER can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ROBERT T NGUYEN/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 3619