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 .
Status of the Claims
This FINAL action is in response to Applicant's amendment of 25 July 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered as follows. Claims 21-23 are entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of 06 February 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. */Examiner consulted about 101 after the interview and has been indicated to maintain it. /* Specifically, Applicant argues:
Response to § 101 rejections As discussed above, the Patent Office rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is allegedly directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In its § 101 analysis under Step 2A, Prong , the Patent Office referred to the following limitations of claim 1:"determining, by a processor, a functional test," and "determining, by the processor, one or more parameter identifiers (PIDs) corresponding to the functional test." The Patent Office then stated, "the foregoing ... limitation(s) constitute a 'mental process' because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind." Office action at page 4.
Then, in its § 101 analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1I, the stated:
the additional elements [of claim 1] 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, ... implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, ... 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.
Id at pages 6-7.
Claim 1, as amended, recites limitations not contemplated under Step 2A, Prong 11 For instance, claim 1 now recites, inter alia:
determining, by the processor, a component test to perform on the vehicle by a digital meter or an oscilloscope operatively coupled to the processor ...; initiating, by the processor, a performance of the component test on the vehicle by the digital meter or oscilloscope; transmitting, by the processor to the vehicle during the performance of the component test, a first set of vehicle data messages and a second set of vehicle data messages ...; and outputting, by the processor on a display, a first graphical user interface including a user-selectable control corresponding to performance of the functional test, a textual description corresponding to each of the one or more PIDs, parameter values corresponding to the one or more PIDs, and a textual or graphical measurement based on the performance of the component test.
Those limitations, alone and/or in combination with other limitations of claim 1, set forth various improvements over current methods and systems for diagnosing a vehicle. As discussed in the specification:
[A]t least some companies have provided computerized tools with functionality from the multiple legacy computerized tools, but the functionality from those legacy computerized tools operate in silos (e.g., without any inter-operability).
For example, a computerized tool can include a menu from which electronic meter functionality and scan tool functionality can be accessed separately using separate menu selections without the ability to perform such functionality simultaneously.
Specification at ¶ 0003, emphasis added. Even more, the specification states:
[W]ithin implementations in which a component test and a functional test can be separately selected, those selections do not permit simultaneous performance of the component test and the functional test. Moreover, as shown in FIG. 78A and FIG. 78B, multiple menu selections within a navigable menu would typically need to made to show a component test and the functional test (although not simultaneously).
Id. at ¶ 00671, emphasis added. Still even more, the specification states:
Additionally, in some instances, a technician uses a computerized tool with scan tool functionality to perform a functional test on the vehicle and uses one or more of her senses to directly perceive a change in vehicle performance in response to performing the functional test. For instance, the technician may perform a functional test to control an audible warning horn on a vehicle and perceive sound waves emitted by the horn during performance of the functional test. In some instances, the horn may not emit any sound waves during performance of the functional test or may emit sound waves at one or more frequencies that indicate that the horn is malfunctioning. In those or in other instances, a technician may be able to service a vehicle more efficiently if the technician is provided with a computerized tool configured for presenting a representation of a target signal corresponding to performance of the functional test. This is especially true for situations in which it is difficult or impossible for a technician to discern the precise timing between initiating and/or performing a functional test with respect to different characteristics of a target signal related to the functional test.
Id. at ¶] 0004, emphasis added.
Based at least on the foregoing discussion, Applicant submits that claim 1, as amended, does integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The method provides an improved way to diagnose a vehicle by transmitting vehicle data messages to request performance of a functional test and PID parameter values during performance of a component test by a digital meter or oscilloscope. A graphical user interface is output on a display to provide a user-selectable control corresponding to performance of the functional test, a textual description corresponding to each of the one or more PIDs, parameter values corresponding to the one or more PIDs, and a textual or graphical measurement based on the performance of the component test. The graphical user interface including those aspects can reduce the burden and time of trying to determine how the vehicle reacted to the functional test.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant submits that claim I sets forth patent eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that the § 101 rejection of claim 1 be withdrawn.
Further, Applicant respectfully requests that, considering the subject matter overlap, the § 101 rejections of independent claims 19 and 20 be withdrawn for at least the reasons advanced above with respect to claim 1.
Furthermore, Applicant respectfully requests that the § 101 rejections of claims 2-18 be
withdrawn for at least the reason that each of those claims depends upon independent claim 1.
Examiners Response:
Examiner has carefully considered Applicant's arguments and respectfully disagrees. Regarding the claimed improvement increasing interoperability in tools used for diagnosing a vehicle, this improvement is not clearly claimed in the current claims. Improving the abstract idea is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a *new* abstract idea is still an abstract idea") (emphasis in original)….even if the steps are groundbreaking, innovative, or brilliant, the improvement is to the abstract idea rather than to computers or technology. See Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1163 (“No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.”). In addition, the added limitation of “initiating…” will be treated as an additional element that is an extra-solution activity as it merely starts a test using well know tools in the art (multimeter/oscilloscope) to test a system/component and wait for its response (data-gathering). As such, even in combination, these additional elements, under broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 06 February 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regards to claim 21, the claimed limitation of “wherein the performance of the component test includes measuring an electrical signal using the digital meter or oscilloscope and an adapter” is not recited in the specification in this manner or supported by the specification. The specification mentions that certain component test may require use of an adapter with temperature/pressure transducers but it does not seem to indicate that both the adapter and the oscilloscope/digital meter would be used in conjunction, as seen in [00723] “The component test 814 includes a target signal identifier 823, a connector image identifier 842, an adapter identifier 885, a waveform identifier 968, and an instruction identifier 969. In this example, the component test does not require any adapter, but other component tests may require use of an adapter, such as a pressure transducer or a temperature transducer. Such transducers(s) can be identified by the adapter information in the component test.”
Claim 22 is rejected for depending on rejected claim 21.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 21, the claim is indefinite because of the recited limitations involving the “wherein the performance of the component test includes measuring an electrical signal using the digital meter or oscilloscope and an adapter”. The specification is not clear that component tests would require both the use of the adapter and oscilloscope/digital meter. The specification mentions that certain component test may require use of an adapter with temperature/pressure transducers but it does not seem to indicate that both the adapter and the oscilloscope/digital meter would be used in conjunction, as seen in [00723] “The component test 814 includes a target signal identifier 823, a connector image identifier 842, an adapter identifier 885, a waveform identifier 968, and an instruction identifier 969. In this example, the component test does not require any adapter, but other component tests may require use of an adapter, such as a pressure transducer or a temperature transducer. Such transducers(s) can be identified by the adapter information in the component test.” It is unclear, to the Examiner, what exactly Applicant is referring to by having a component test use both the adapter and oscilloscope/digital meter. Examiner will treat this limitation as having a scan tool with capabilities to perform tests with either a multimeter or a transducer.
Claim 22 is rejected for depending on rejected claim 21.
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 1-23 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, claim 19 is directed to a system and claim 20 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media. Therefore, claims 1, 19 and 20 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 abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 19 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
determining, by a processor, a functional test to perform on a vehicle;
determining, by the processor, a component test to perform on the vehicle by a digital meter or an oscilloscope operatively coupled to the processor;
determining, by the processor, one or more parameter identifiers (PIDs) corresponding to the functional test;
initiating, by the processor, a performance of the component test on the vehicle by the digital meter or oscilloscope;
transmitting, by the processor to the vehicle during the performance of the component test, a first set of vehicle data messages and a second set of vehicle data messages, wherein the first set of vehicle data messages includes a first vehicle data message to request performance of the functional test and the second set of vehicle data messages includes vehicle data messages including the one or more PIDs;
receiving, by the processor from the vehicle, a third set of vehicle data message including parameter values corresponding to the one or more PIDs;
and outputting, by the processor on a display, a first graphical user interface including a user- selectable control corresponding to performance of the functional test, a textual description corresponding to each of the one or more PIDs
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining …” all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. 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 method comprising:
determining, by a processor, a functional test to perform on a vehicle;
determining, by the processor, a component test to perform on the vehicle by a digital meter or an oscilloscope operatively coupled to the processor;
determining, by the processor, one or more parameter identifiers (PIDs) corresponding to the functional test;
initiating, by the processor, a performance of the component test on the vehicle by the digital meter or oscilloscope;
transmitting, by the processor to the vehicle during the performance of the component test, a first set of vehicle data messages and a second set of vehicle data messages, wherein the first set of vehicle data messages includes a first vehicle data message to request performance of the functional test and the second set of vehicle data messages includes vehicle data messages including the one or more PIDs;
receiving, by the processor from the vehicle, a third set of vehicle data message including parameter values corresponding to the one or more PIDs;
and outputting, by the processor on a display, a first graphical user interface including a user- selectable control corresponding to performance of the functional test, a textual description corresponding to each of the one or more PIDs
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 step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, the added limitation of “initiating…” will be treated as an additional element that is an extra-solution activity as it merely starts a test using well know tools in the art (multimeter/oscilloscope) to test a system/component and wait for its response (data-gathering). The transmitting and outputting 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 19 and 20 further recite “A computing system comprising: a display; a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable memory having stored thereon instructions executable by the processor to perform functions, the functions comprising:” and “A non-transitory computer-readable memory having stored therein instructions executable by a processor to cause a computing system to perform functions, the functions comprising:” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle diagnostic 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.
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, 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 are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because 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.
Dependent claims 2-18 and 21-23 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims 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. The dependent claims merely recite additional limitations such as “determining”, “outputting”, “displaying”, “transmitting” and “receiving”. Therefore, dependent claims 2-18 and 21-23 are not patent eligible.
Therefore, claims 1-23 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1, 2, 6-9 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US 20180047223) in view of Merg ‘614 (US 20180357614 A1) in view of Merg ‘743 (US 20200184743) in view of Covington ‘280 (US 10163280 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lewis teaches A method comprising (see at least [¶03-09]):
determining, by a processor, a functional test to perform on a vehicle (Determining a functional test to perform on a vehicle based on the detected symptoms. see at least [¶063-064 & 0137-0138]);
determining, by the processor, a component test to perform on the vehicle by a digital meter or an oscilloscope operatively coupled to the processor (Determining components test that can be performed on the vehicle by an oscilloscope or multimeter. see at least [¶063-064 & 0125]);
determining, by the processor, one or more parameter identifiers (PIDs) corresponding to the functional test (Determining PIDs that correspond to functional tests through mapping. see at least [¶064-065, 095-097, 0100, 0137-0138 & Fig 11]);
Lewis does not explicitly teach initiating, by the processor, a performance of the component test on the vehicle by the digital meter or oscilloscope.
However, Merg ‘614 does teach initiating, by the processor, a performance of the component test on the vehicle by the digital meter or oscilloscope (Initiating by an RSE, the performance of the component test on the vehicle using an oscilloscope or multimeter. see at least [¶093, 0152, 0156 & 0166]).
Merg ‘614 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of diagnostic tools. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Lewis to use the technique of initiating, by the processor, a performance of the component test on the vehicle by the digital meter or oscilloscope as taught by Merg ‘614. Doing so would lead to improved diagnosis/repair of a vehicle (see at least [¶0166]).
Lewis and Merg ‘614 do not explicitly teach transmitting, by the processor to the vehicle during the performance of the component test, a first set of vehicle data messages and a second set of vehicle data messages, wherein the first set of vehicle data messages includes a first vehicle data message to request performance of the functional test and the second set of vehicle data messages includes vehicle data messages including the one or more PIDs; receiving, by the processor from the vehicle, a third set of vehicle data message including parameter values corresponding to the one or more PIDs.
However, Merg ‘743 does teach transmitting, by the processor to the vehicle during the performance of the component test, a first set of vehicle data messages and a second set of vehicle data messages, wherein the first set of vehicle data messages includes a first vehicle data message to request performance of the functional test and the second set of vehicle data messages includes vehicle data messages including the one or more PIDs (Transmitting while a component test is occurring, a VDM that can request the scan tool to perform a functional test and a VDM that request PID data. It would be obvious that component tests, functional tests, and reset procedures could all occur at the same time as referenced in Merg in paragraph 039. see at least [¶039, 0112, 0119-0120, 060 & 0123-0124]);
receiving, by the processor from the vehicle, a third set of vehicle data message including parameter values corresponding to the one or more PIDs (Receiving from the vehicle, VDM that include values corresponding to the tested PIDs. see at least [¶039, 0112, 0119-0120, 060 & 0123-0124]).
Merg ‘743 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of vehicle scan tools. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Lewis and Merg ‘614 to use the technique of transmitting, by the processor to the vehicle during the performance of the component test, a first set of vehicle data messages and a second set of vehicle data messages, wherein the first set of vehicle data messages includes a first vehicle data message to request performance of the functional test and the second set of vehicle data messages includes vehicle data messages including the one or more PIDs; receiving, by the processor from the vehicle, a third set of vehicle data message including parameter values corresponding to the one or more PIDs as taught by Merg ‘743. Doing so would lead to improved user experience while using vehicle scan tools (see at least [¶041]).
Lewis, Merg ‘614 and Merg ‘743 do not explicitly teach and outputting, by the processor on a display, a first graphical user interface including a user- selectable control corresponding to performance of the functional test, a textual description corresponding to each of the one or more PIDs, parameter values corresponding to the one or more PIDs, and a textual or graphical measurement based on the performance of the component test.
However, Covington ‘280 does teach and outputting, by the processor on a display, a first graphical user interface including a user- selectable control corresponding to performance of the functional test, a textual description corresponding to each of the one or more PIDs, parameter values corresponding to the one or more PIDs, and a textual or graphical measurement based on the performance of the component test (Outputting on a display, a graphical interface that allows a user to interact with the interface. The interface can show performance of a functional test, a text description for the PIDs, parameter values for the PIDs, and text/graph output for a component test. This is all done via the interface with selectable pop-up windows. (see at least [Column 19, Lines 20-32, Column 21, Lines 4-13 & Column 27-28, Lines 8-20]).
Covington ‘280 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of diagnostic data for vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Lewis, Merg ‘614 and Merg ‘743 to use the technique of outputting, by the processor on a display, a first graphical user interface including a user- selectable control corresponding to performance of the functional test, a textual description corresponding to each of the one or more PIDs, parameter values corresponding to the one or more PIDs, and a textual or graphical measurement based on the performance of the component test as taught by Covington ‘280. Doing so would lead to improved data review for users diagnosing a vehicle (see at least [Column 1, Lines 26-47]).
Regarding Claim 2, Lewis, Merg ‘614, Merg ‘743 and Covington ‘280 teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Lewis teaches wherein determining the functional test includes determining the functional test is selected via the first graphical user interface or a second graphical user interface (To determine the functional test, user selection of a functional test through a graphical interface is used. see at least [¶0185]),
and wherein determining the functional test is selected via the first graphical user interface or the second graphical user interface includes determining a user-selectable control on the first graphical user interface or the second graphical user interface is selected, and wherein the user-selectable control corresponds to the functional test (To determine the functional test is selected, user selection of a functional test through a graphical interface is used. see at least [¶0185, 0189 & 0212-0213]).
Regarding Claim 6, Lewis, Merg ‘614, Merg ‘743 and Covington ‘280 teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Merg ‘743 teaches determining a component selected via a second graphical user interface, wherein determining the functional test includes determining the functional test based on component-to-functional-test mapping data and the component selected via the second graphical user interface (Determining that a component is selected through a graphical user interface and determining the functional test(s) based on component-to-functional-test mapping data and the component selected via the GUI. see at least [¶0117 & 0152]).
Merg ‘743 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of vehicle scan tools. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Lewis, Merg ‘614 and Covington ‘280 to use the technique of determining a component selected via a second graphical user interface, wherein determining the functional test includes determining the functional test based on component-to-functional-test mapping data and the component selected via the second graphical user interface as taught by Merg ‘743. Doing so would lead to improved user navigation while using vehicle scan tools (see at least [¶0152]).
Regarding Claim 7, Lewis, Merg ‘614, Merg ‘743 and Covington ‘280 teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Lewis teaches determining a symptom selected via a second graphical user interface, wherein determining the functional test includes determining the functional test based on symptom-to-functional-test mapping data and the symptom selected via the second graphical user interface (Determining a selected symptom through a graphical user interface, where determining the functional test includes determining the functional test based on symptom-to-functional-test mapping data and the symptom selected. see at least [¶095-097, 0233 & 0236-0238]).
Regarding Claim 8, Lewis, Merg ‘614, Merg ‘743 and Covington ‘280 teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Lewis teaches determining a symptom exhibited by the vehicle, wherein determining the functional test includes determining the functional test based on symptom-to-functional-test mapping data and the symptom exhibited by the vehicle (Determining a symptom that a vehicle is experiencing, where determining the functional test includes determining the functional test based on symptom-to-functional-test mapping data and the symptom exhibited. see at least [¶062, 097 & 0126]).
Regarding Claim 9, Lewis, Merg ‘614, Merg ‘743 and Covington ‘280 teach all of the limitations of Claim 8 as shown above, furthermore, Lewis teaches wherein the symptom includes a diagnostic trouble code set by an electronic control unit in the vehicle (The symptom includes a diagnostic trouble code set by the vehicle ECU. see at least [¶062, 099, 0116 & 0125]).
Regarding Claim 17, Lewis, Merg ‘614, Merg ‘743 and Covington ‘280 teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Lewis teaches wherein the user-selectable control comprises a first user-selectable control, and wherein the method further comprises (User selectable control is provided through a display interface. see at least [¶0183-0187]):
determining, by the processor, a second user-selectable control output on the display is selected, wherein the second user-selectable control corresponds to a selected parameter identifier (Determining when a user selects in a display a corresponding PID. see at least [¶0187-0191]);
determining, by the processor, a test set file corresponding to the selected parameter identifier, wherein the test set file includes a test identifier (Determine what functional test correspond to PIDs from obtained metadata/files. These files are also mere JSON code which would be obvious to be found in the Lewis reference for PID-functional test mapping. see at least [¶097-0100, 0119-0122 & 0137)];
outputting, by the processor on the display, a second graphical user interface based on the test set file, wherein the second graphical user interface includes a third user-selectable control, and wherein the third user-selectable control corresponds to a test (Outputting on a display, a GUI that has user selectable controls for a functional test. see at least [¶0183-0186, 0187-0191 & 0211-0213]);
and determining, by the processor, the third user-selectable control is selected and responsively performing the test or requesting performance of the test (Determining when a user selects a test and performing the test. see at least [¶0211-0213]).
Regarding Claim 18, Lewis, Merg ‘614, Merg ‘743 and Covington ‘280 teach all of the limitations of Claim 17 as shown above, furthermore, Lewis wherein the test comprises a component test, a functional test, or a reset procedure (The applicable tests for diagnostic can include a functional test, component test or a reset procedure. see at least [¶050, 063-065 & 0110]).
Regarding Claim 19, Lewis teaches A computing system comprising: a display; a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable memory having stored thereon instructions executable by the processor to perform functions, the functions comprising (A system includes a display, processor and non-transitory memory. see at least [¶02-011, 051 & 068-073]):
determining, by a processor, a functional test to perform on a vehicle (Determining a functional test to perform on a vehicle based on the detected symptoms. see at least [¶063-064 & 0137-0138]);
determining, by the processor, a component test to perform on the vehicle by a digital meter or an oscilloscope operatively coupled to the processor (Determining components test that can be performed on the vehicle by an oscilloscope or multimeter. see at least [¶063-064 & 0125]);
determining, by the processor, one or more parameter identifiers (PIDs) corresponding to the functional test (Determining PIDs that correspond to functional tests through mapping. see at least [¶064-065, 095-097, 0100, 0137-0138 & Fig 11]);
Lewis does not explicitly teach initiating, by the processor, a performance of the component test on the vehicle by the digital meter or oscilloscope.
However, Merg ‘614 does teach initiating, by the processor, a performance of the component test on the vehicle by the digital meter or oscilloscope (Initiating by an RSE, the performance of the component test on the vehicle using an oscilloscope or multimeter. see at least [¶093, 0152, 0156 & 0166]).
Merg ‘614 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of diagnostic tools. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Lewis to use the technique of initiating, by the processor, a performance of the component test on the vehicle by the digital meter or oscilloscope as taught by Merg ‘614. Doing so would lead to improved diagnosis/repair of a vehicle (see at least [¶0166]).
Lewis and Merg ‘614 do not explicitly teach transmitting, by the processor to the vehicle during the performance of the component test, a first set of vehicle data messages and a second set of vehicle data messages, wherein the first set of vehicle data messages includes a first vehicle data message to request performance of the functional test and the second set of vehicle data messages includes vehicle data messages including the one or more PIDs; receiving, by the processor from the vehicle, a third set of vehicle data message including parameter values corresponding to the one or more PIDs.
However, Merg ‘743 does teach transmitting, by the processor to the vehicle during the performance of the component test, a first set of vehicle data messages and a second set of vehicle data messages, wherein the first set of vehicle data messages includes a first vehicle data message to request performance of the functional test and the second set of vehicle data messages includes vehicle data messages including the one or more PIDs (Transmitting while a component test is occurring, a VDM that can request the scan tool to perform a functional test and a VDM that request PID data. It would be obvious that component tests, functional tests, and reset procedures could all occur at the same time as referenced in Merg in paragraph 039. see at least [¶039, 0112, 0119-0120, 060 & 0123-0124]);
receiving, by the processor from the vehicle, a third set of vehicle data message including parameter values corresponding to the one or more PIDs (Receiving from the vehicle, VDM that include values corresponding to the tested PIDs. see at least [¶039, 0112, 0119-0120, 060 & 0123-0124]).
Merg ‘743 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of vehicle scan tools. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Lewis and Merg ‘614 to use the technique of transmitting, by the processor to the vehicle during the performance of the component test, a first set of vehicle data messages and a second set of vehicle data messages, wherein the first set of vehicle data messages includes a first vehicle data message to request performance of the functional test and the second set of vehicle data messages includes vehicle data messages including the one or more PIDs; receiving, by the processor from the vehicle, a third set of vehicle data message including parameter values corresponding to the one or more PIDs as taught by Merg ‘743. Doing so would lead to improved user experience while using vehicle scan tools (see at least [¶041]).
Lewis, Merg ‘614 and Merg ‘743 do not explicitly teach and outputting, by the processor on a display, a first graphical user interface including a user- selectable control corresponding to performance of the functional test, a textual description corresponding to each of the one or more PIDs, parameter values corresponding to the one or more PIDs, and a textual or graphical measurement based on the performance of the component test.
However, Covington ‘280 does teach and outputting, by the processor on a display, a first graphical user interface including a user- selectable control corresponding to performance of the functional test, a textual description corresponding to each of the one or more PIDs, parameter values corresponding to the one or more PIDs, and a textual or graphical measurement based on the performance of the component test (Outputting on a display, a graphical interface that allows a user to interact with the interface. The interface can show performance of a functional test, a text description for the PIDs, parameter values for the PIDs, and text/graph output for a component test. This is all done via the interface with selectable pop-up windows. (see at least [Column 19, Lines 20-32, Column 21, Lines 4-13 & Column 27-28, Lines 8-20]).
Covington ‘280 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of diagnostic data for vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Lewis, Merg ‘614 and Merg ‘743 to use the technique of outputting, by the processor on a display, a first graphical user interface including a user- selectable control corresponding to performance of the functional test, a textual description corresponding to each of the one or more PIDs, parameter values corresponding to the one or more PIDs, and a textual or graphical measurement based on the performance of the component test as taught by Covington ‘280. Doing so would lead to improved data review for users diagnosing a vehicle (see at least [Column 1, Lines 26-47]).
Regarding Claim 20, Lewis teaches A non-transitory computer-readable memory having stored therein instructions executable by a processor to cause a computing system to perform functions, the functions comprising (see at least [¶02-011 & 068-073]):
determining, by a processor, a functional test to perform on a vehicle (Determining a functional test to perform on a vehicle based on the detected symptoms. see at least [¶063-064 & 0137-0138]);
determining, by the processor, a component test to perform on the vehicle by a digital meter or an oscilloscope operatively coupled to the processor (Determining components test that can be performed on the vehicle by an oscilloscope or multimeter. see at least [¶063-064 & 0125]);
determining, by the processor, one or more parameter identifiers (PIDs) corresponding to the functional test (Determining PIDs that correspond to functional tests through mapping. see at least [¶064-065, 095-097, 0100, 0137-0138 & Fig 11]);
Lewis does not explicitly teach initiating, by the processor, a performance of the component test on the vehicle by the digital meter or oscilloscope.
However, Merg ‘614 does teach initiating, by the processor, a performance of the component test on the vehicle by the digital meter or oscilloscope (Initiating by an RSE, the performance of the component test on the vehicle using an oscilloscope or multimeter. see at least [¶093, 0152, 0156 & 0166]).
Merg ‘614 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of diagnostic tools. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Lewis to use the technique of initiating, by the processor, a performance of the component test on the vehicle by the digital meter or oscilloscope as taught by Merg ‘614. Doing so would lead to improved diagnosis/repair of a vehicle (see at least [¶0166]).
Lewis and Merg ‘614 do not explicitly teach transmitting, by the processor to the vehicle during the performance of the component test, a first set of vehicle data messages and a second set of vehicle data messages, wherein the first set of vehicle data messages includes a first vehicle data message to request performance of the functional test and the second set of vehicle data messages includes vehicle data messages including the one or more PIDs; receiving, by the processor from the vehicle, a third set of vehicle data message including parameter values corresponding to the one or more PIDs.
However, Merg ‘743 does teach transmitting, by the processor to the vehicle during the performance of the component test, a first set of vehicle data messages and a second set of vehicle data messages, wherein the first set of vehicle data messages includes a first vehicle data message to request performance of the functional test and the second set of vehicle data messages includes vehicle data messages including the one or more PIDs (Transmitting while a comp