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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on October 04th 2023. These drawings are accepted.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on July 6th 2026;
Claims 2-3 and 13-15 are canceled.
Claims 1, 4-12 and 16 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments with respect to interpretation and rejection of claims under 35 USC§101 have been fully considered consider but examiner respectfully disagree. Specifically, applicant argues that the amendments to claim 1; “vehicle part; a sensor associated with the vehicle part; an electronic control unit (ECU);… wherein the compiler receives, from the ECU, data regarding an actual operating time of the vehicle in each operating mode, wherein the compiler receives, from the sensor, data regarding a total actual operation time T of the vehicle part,” ; vehicle and vehicle part are recited at high level of generality (any part, any vehicle type), as a controller an additional element that can be view as nothing more than an attempt to generally link. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of a vehicle does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. As such, the amendments presented by the applicant does not overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection, the amended claims are still being directed to an abstract Idea, limitation of claims 1 can be performed in the human mind. As such, the examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments, and has maintained the claim rejections under 35 USC § 101 herein.
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 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis for claim 1:
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 14 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a data collection and mathematical concept which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea mathematical concept.
Claim 1
A vehicle for determining remaining useful life (RUL) of a vehicle part included in and/or on the vehicle comprising:
a vehicle part;
a sensor associated with the vehicle part;
an electronic control unit (ECU);
a compiler communicatively connected with each of the electronic control unit (ECU) and the sensor associated with the vehicle part, and
wherein a dealer network is communicatively connected with the compiler; and
a controller area network (CAN) bus communicatively connecting the ECU, the sensor and the compiler;
wherein the compiler receives the historical statistical data regarding vehicle part failures from the dealer network;
wherein the compiler receives, from the ECU, data regarding an actual operating time of the vehicle in each operating mode,
wherein the compiler receives, from the sensor, data regarding a total actual operation time T of the vehicle part,
wherein the compiler:
determines for the vehicle part, one or more operating modes during which the vehicle part is working and at least one operating mode during which the vehicle part is not working;
determines the actual reliability of the vehicle part based on operating time associated with the one or more operating modes during which the vehicle part is working and excludes from determination of actual reliability operating time associated with the at least one operating mode during which the vehicle part is not working;
determines the forecasted reliability of the vehicle part, utilizing the historical statistical data regarding vehicle part failures from the dealer network; and
determines the RUL of the vehicle part based on the forecasted reliability, the actual reliability and the total actual operation time T of the vehicle part; and outputs the determined RUL for the vehicle part as a maintenance prognostic for the vehicle part.
The system in claim 1 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea the limitations of claim 1 highlighted above merely consist of using a mathematical equation to determine reliability. More specifically, a person can use the collected data and given formula to calculate the reliability of the vehicle part. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
A vehicle for determining remaining useful life (RUL) of a vehicle part included in and/or on the vehicle comprising:
a vehicle part;
a sensor associated with the vehicle part;
an electronic control unit (ECU);
a compiler communicatively connected with each of the electronic control unit (ECU) and the sensor associated with the vehicle part, and
wherein a dealer network is communicatively connected with the compiler; and
a controller area network (CAN) bus communicatively connecting the ECU, the sensor and the compiler;
wherein the compiler receives the historical statistical data regarding vehicle part failures from the dealer network;
wherein the compiler receives, from the ECU, data regarding an actual operating time of the vehicle in each operating mode,
wherein the compiler receives, from the sensor, data regarding a total actual operation time T of the vehicle part,
wherein the compiler:
determines for the vehicle part, one or more operating modes during which the vehicle part is working and at least one operating mode during which the vehicle part is not working;
determines the actual reliability of the vehicle part based on operating time associated with the one or more operating modes during which the vehicle part is working and excludes from determination of actual reliability operating time associated with the at least one operating mode during which the vehicle part is not working;
determines the forecasted reliability of the vehicle part, utilizing the historical statistical data regarding vehicle part failures from the dealer network; and
determines the RUL of the vehicle part based on the forecasted reliability, the actual reliability and the total actual operation time T of the vehicle part; and outputs the determined RUL for the vehicle part as a maintenance prognostic for the vehicle part.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an
abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The directing limitation is recited at a high level of using a general-purpose computer (compiler) to solve mathematical equation and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of extra solution activity. The compiler merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the step of determining is performed by a processor. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Transmitting data and using the data for mathematical concept are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by processors, such as the system in claim 1.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional
elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not
recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is
clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 4-12 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. As such, claims 1 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Claim 16 is eligible.
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.
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, 4-5 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang et al (Patent No. US20210192867A1) in view of Zagajac (Patent No. DE102015120991A1).
Regarding claim 1 Fang teaches, a vehicle part; a sensor associated with the vehicle part; an electronic control unit (ECU); a compiler communicatively connected with each of the electronic control unit (ECU) and the sensor associated with the vehicle part, and wherein a dealer network is communicatively connected with the compiler; (See Fank paragraph 0654 and 0312; “…the property conditioning circuit 15310 may derive the requested property as a virtual vehicle property value 15318 from the two or more vehicle parameter values 15314 and 15316, e.g., a fuel efficiency sensor or determined value, oil change detection sensor or determined value, etc. Non-limiting examples of virtual vehicle properties include: vehicle speed values; motive power efficiency values; event occurrence values; a listing of previous vehicle locations; estimated temperature values; estimated pressure values; effective temperature values; effective pressure values; heat transfer rate values; remaining life values for components; time to maintenance values for a component; diagnostic counter values; a listing of one or more user activated features; an average vehicle runtime value; an estimated vehicle operating cost value; a state value of any end point, sensor, actuator, control operation, and/or the vehicle; … vehicle functions today are implemented as mission-specific, monolithic code that is tightly coupled with underlying middleware, operating system, and hardware of a particular controller (e.g., ECU). A SOA architecture allows new applications to re-use either data or function provided by existing applications across the network, regardless which ECU they reside in, which network they are associated with, the underlying hardware, OS, middleware, and the programming language used. The utilization of a SOA decouples the control logic from sensor data and actuator, thus making applications and control functions portable to different ECUs. The utilization of a SOA increases the scalability of the overall system functions because both service providers and consumers could be added/subtracted or enabled/disabled based on performance, cost tradeoff, and changes to the system (e.g., operating conditions, change in permissions, change in subscriptions, etc.). Additionally, the utilization of a SOA allows for the timing of a feature to be de-coupled from the manufacturing event or dealer preparation event, as features can be readily added or removed when the feature is available.”); and a controller area network (CAN) bus communicatively connecting the ECU, the sensor and the compiler; (See Fang paragraph 0221, 0276 and 0277; “…vehicle networks include a network having one or more CAN buses with a number of devices communicating over the CAN bus(es), and one or more ethernet networks with a number of devices communicating over the ethernet network, and communication that crosses from CAN to ethernet and/or vice-versa.…monolithic code that is tightly coupled with underlying middleware, operating system, and hardware of a particular controller (e.g., ECU). A SOA architecture allows new applications to re-use either data or function provided by existing applications across the network, regardless which ECU they reside in, which network they are associated with, the underlying hardware, OS, middleware, and the programming language used. The utilization of a SOA decouples the control logic from sensor data and actuator, thus making applications and control functions portable to different ECUs…Remote control operations for certain features may be hard-coded in the ECU software—for example simple operations such as start/stop operations of the engine, lock/unlock operations of the doors, open/close operations of the windows and/or sunroof, etc. However, adding or changing functionality after production is complete for such features requires code changes and verification, which may include re-qualification of one or more ECUs, and/or software builds on those ECUs, that participate in remote functions. Embodiments of the present disclosure are capable to configure remote control operations of a mobile application at any point in the life cycle of the vehicle, and further allow for configuration, updating, and fixing of remote operations included at the time of manufacture.”); wherein the compiler receives the historical statistical data regarding vehicle part failures from the dealer network; (See Fang paragraph 0523; “ apparatus 2700 includes the end points 2716 (e.g., end points providing data for collection, and/or responding to actuation commands in the vehicle policy data value 2710) positioned on at least two different network zones of the vehicle. An example drier information description 2712 includes a driver characteristic, for example to be compared to present driver information 2714 (e.g., describing a driver role, driver identification, historical and/or performance data for the driver, etc.) to adjust the vehicle policy data value 2710 and/or to perform collection operations pursuant to the vehicle policy data value 2710 that are responsive to characteristics of the present driver of the vehicle. An example policy execution circuit 2708 interprets the present driver information 2714, comparing it to a driver characteristic of the driver information description 2712, and collects the vehicle data 2722 in response to the comparison—for example tailoring the parameters collected, features configured, formatting of collected data, etc. in response to the comparison. An example driver information description 2712 includes a description of monitoring data for a driver of the vehicle—for example tailoring monitoring parameters (e.g., speed, location, utilization of features, driving performance parameters, etc.) to the driver role, specific identified driver, and/or any other driver characteristic.”); wherein the compiler receives, from the ECU, data regarding an actual operating time of the vehicle in each operating mode, wherein the compiler receives, from the sensor, data regarding a total actual operation time T of the vehicle part; (See Fang paragraph 0223; “. Communications to external devices may be to a general network (e.g., over the internet), a WAN, a LAN, a mobile device in proximity to the vehicle, and/or combinations of these. Certain systems and procedures described herein particularly contemplate run-time operations of the vehicle, for example external communications occurring during operating conditions wherein the vehicle is executing a mission (e.g., moving, performing operations while not moving, etc.). The disclosure herein further contemplates communications that may occur during any period, including during down-time of the vehicle and/or during service events. The disclosure herein further contemplates communications that may occur through wired communication channels, such as when the vehicle network is in communication with a service tool, on-board diagnostics (OBD) instrument, or other physically coupled device.”); wherein the compiler: determines for the vehicle part, one or more operating modes during which the vehicle part is working and at least one operating mode during which the vehicle part is not working; (See Fang paragraph 0346; “Example remote control operations include a prerequisite condition, a task, and/or a status report. The prerequisite condition includes any combination of vehicle status, CAN signals, Ethernet packets, information stored on a computer readable medium (e.g., log information, trip information, and/or other vehicle information stored in a memory location), time and/or date, location, etc. to be utilized as a prerequisite trigger condition for the remote operation, and can further be configured as a complex logical expression and may further be based on a number of conditions. The task includes an action that can be performed utilizing a CAN signal, Ethernet packet, or other network communication, including at least any action described under customized operation preceding. The status report includes acknowledgement information, confirmation that an operation was performed and/or notification that an operation was not performed, related data, confirming data, utilization data related to the remote control operation, etc. The content of the status report may vary with the recipient and/or requestor of the status report—for example the operator may receive a simple status report confirming the operation, a service personnel may receive a more detailed status report with associated parameters related to the operation, and a manufacturer may receive a detailed status report with personally identifiable information removed (e.g., to compile reliability data, while allowing for storage and aggregation of the data without having to manage personally identifiable information). The presence and/or content of the prerequisite condition, task, and/or status report may be provided and/or updated by user input, policy, and/or configuration information.”); determines the actual reliability of the vehicle part based on operating time associated with the one or more operating modes during which the vehicle part is working and excludes from determination of actual reliability operating time associated with the at least one operating mode during which the vehicle part is not working; (See Fang paragraph 0646; “remote control operations include a prerequisite condition, a task, and/or a status report. The prerequisite condition includes any combination of vehicle status, CAN signals, Ethernet packets, information stored on a computer readable medium (e.g., log information, trip information, and/or other vehicle information stored in a memory location), time and/or date, location, etc. to be utilized as a prerequisite trigger condition for the remote operation, and can further be configured as a complex logical expression and may further be based on a number of conditions. The task includes an action that can be performed utilizing a CAN signal, Ethernet packet, or other network communication, including at least any action described under customized operation preceding. The status report includes acknowledgement information, confirmation that an operation was performed and/or notification that an operation was not performed, related data, confirming data, utilization data related to the remote control operation, etc. The content of the status report may vary with the recipient and/or requestor of the status report—for example the operator may receive a simple status report confirming the operation, a service personnel may receive a more detailed status report with associated parameters related to the operation, and a manufacturer may receive a detailed status report with personally identifiable information removed (e.g., to compile reliability data, while allowing for storage and aggregation of the data without having to manage personally identifiable information). The presence and/or content of the prerequisite condition, task, and/or status report may be provided and/or updated by user input, policy, and/or configuration information.”); determines the forecasted reliability of the vehicle part, utilizing the historical statistical data regarding vehicle part failures from the dealer network; (See Fang paragraph 0854 and 0346 ; “Policy manager circuit 20631 is configured to interpret data collection policy 20601. As described in detail above, data collection policy 20601 is configured to identify data required to be evaluated by trigger conditions and may be configured to identify vehicle data to be captured when the trigger conditions are satisfied. In certain embodiments, data collection policy 20601 includes a plurality of trigger evaluation data identifiers configured to identify trigger evaluation data to be evaluated by a plurality of trigger conditions of the data collection policy. In certain embodiments, data collection policy 20601 includes a plurality of vehicle data identifiers configured to identify vehicle data to be captured in response to trigger conditions specified by a trigger policy. The trigger evaluation data identifiers and vehicle data identifiers may correspond to a plurality of data types including at least two of a controller area network (CAN) message, a CAN signal, an ethernet packet, a vehicle location, a vehicle status, diagnostic trouble codes, an ethernet status, a file stored within the vehicle, or vehicle communication controller statistics…a service personnel may receive a more detailed status report with associated parameters related to the operation, and a manufacturer may receive a detailed status report with personally identifiable information removed (e.g., to compile reliability data, while allowing for storage and aggregation of the data without having to manage personally identifiable information). The presence and/or content of the prerequisite condition, task, and/or status report may be provided and/or updated by user input, policy, and/or configuration information.”); and determines the RUL of the vehicle part based on the forecasted reliability, the actual reliability and the total actual operation time T of the vehicle part; ; (See Fang paragraph 0223; “. Communications to external devices may be to a general network (e.g., over the internet), a WAN, a LAN, a mobile device in proximity to the vehicle, and/or combinations of these. Certain systems and procedures described herein particularly contemplate run-time operations of the vehicle, for example external communications occurring during operating conditions wherein the vehicle is executing a mission (e.g., moving, performing operations while not moving, etc.). The disclosure herein further contemplates communications that may occur during any period, including during down-time of the vehicle and/or during service events. The disclosure herein further contemplates communications that may occur through wired communication channels, such as when the vehicle network is in communication with a service tool, on-board diagnostics (OBD) instrument, or other physically coupled device.”); and outputs the determined RUL for the vehicle part as a maintenance prognostic for the vehicle part; (See Fang paragraph 0237 and 0527; “An example policy, as utilized herein, includes a policy provided by an external device that requests the vehicle to collect a set of data over an extended period of time, and/or on an ongoing basis, where the collected data is sent back to the external device periodically and/or intermittently at intervals that allow for improved utilization of bandwidth by selecting transmission times and/or allowing for compression operations on the data to reduce communicated data volumes. The example policy may be kept for a defined period, kept until removed by the external device, and/or kept until an event occurs (e.g., a research data collection operation, where the event is configured to establish that the vehicle is no longer relevant to the research). The defined period and/or event parameters to delete the policy may be defined within the policy. Example uses of such a policy include research projects, continuous improvement projects (e.g., development of diagnostic or prognostic algorithms for a vehicle or a related group of vehicles, continuous improvement of operational algorithms, etc.), ongoing analysis projects (e.g., analyzing a large data set to detect trends, changes within a related group of vehicles, and/or verify that a change to the related group of vehicles is having an expected effect)… The operations of the apparatus 3100 may be utilized to support alternate operations (e.g., determining whether to utilize a substitute data value, control operation, or the like responsive to the fault occurrence); to support knowledge generation related to the vehicle and/or a group of vehicles (e.g., to accumulate the collected data with data from other vehicles and/or previous occurrences of the fault on the current vehicle, which may be utilized to improve the design, improve prognostication of faults, and/or improve service and/or diagnostic operations responsive to the fault occurrence); and/or for any other purpose (e.g., warranty execution and/or response, provision of alerts and/or notifications to the operator, service personnel, a fleet owner, etc.).”).
Fang does not explicitly teach but Zagajac teaches a vehicle for determining remaining useful life (RUL) of a vehicle part included in and/or on the vehicle comprising; (See Zagajac paragraph 0031; “Fig. 2A shows an illustrative system for reporting data related to vehicle system wear and scheduling maintenance”).
Both Fang and Zagajac are in the same field of systems for vehicle data management. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Fang vehicle data collection during down-time of the vehicle and/or during service events, wired communication channels, such as when the vehicle network is in communication with a service tool, on-board diagnostics (OBD) instrument, or other physically coupled device with Zagajac remining useful life determined from data collected and communicated in Fang. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Fang. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 4 Fang in view of Zagajac teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the compiler comprises a computer program installable to an electronic control unit located within the vehicle; (See Fang paragraph 0925; “The computer executable code may be created using a structured programming language such as C, an object oriented programming language such as C++, or any other high-level or low-level programming language (including assembly languages, hardware description languages, and database programming languages and technologies) that may be stored, compiled or interpreted to run on one of the above devices, as well as heterogeneous combinations of processors, processor architectures, or combinations of different hardware and computer readable instructions, or any other machine capable of executing program instructions.”).
Regarding claim 5 Fang in view of Zagajac teaches the vehicle of claim 1, Fang further teaches, wherein the compiler is contained within a standalone computerized device; (See Fang paragraph 0925; “The computer executable code may be created using a structured programming language such as C, an object oriented programming language such as C++, or any other high-level or low-level programming language (including assembly languages, hardware description languages, and database programming languages and technologies) that may be stored, compiled or interpreted to run on one of the above devices, as well as heterogeneous combinations of processors, processor architectures, or combinations of different hardware and computer readable instructions, or any other machine capable of executing program instructions.”).
Regarding claim 9 Fang in view of Zagajac teaches the vehicle of claim 1, Zagajac does not teach but Happ teaches wherein the vehicle is an electric vehicle; (See Fang paragraph 0440; “An example implementation is positioned on an electric vehicle...”).
Regarding claim 10 Fang in view of Zagajac teaches the vehicle of claim 7, Fang also teaches wherein the operating modes comprise start, idle, run, and stop; (See Fang paragraph 0554; “…An example vehicle operating condition 6606 may be a categorical and/or discrete value, such as a state condition (e.g., shutdown, moving, startup, idle, high load operation, low load operation, etc.)”).
With respect to the dependent claims 11 and 12, please see rejection above with respect to claim 10 which is commensurate in scope to claims 11 and 12, with claim 10 being drown to system, claims 11 and 12 being drawn to a system as well.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Fang et al (Patent No. US20210192867A1) in view of Zagajac (Patent No. DE102015120991A1) and Haap (Patent No. US20140100737A1).
Regarding claim 6 Fang in view of Zagajac teaches the vehicle of claim 5, Fang does not explicitly teach but Happ teaches wherein the compiler is located within the vehicle; (See Haap paragraph 0036, 0044 and 0049; “…The server 2 is connected to the diagnostic devices arranged in the vehicles 1 via the communication means 9. This connection can in turn be embodied as an electrical, wireless or other connection… The script execution device is preferably a script compiler, which converts the OTX test sequences or the ETX scripts into the diagnostic target format, e.g. LUA, Java, Python, Pearl etc., which is applied in the respective vehicle… the transmission of the script execution results from the diagnostic device to a server takes place in encrypted form, preferably via a mobile telephony connection, and takes place in the same way as the transmission of the execution parameters.”).
Regarding claim 7 Fang in view of Zagajac teaches the vehicle of claim 1, Fang does not explicitly teach but Happ teaches wherein the vehicle is a conventional truck; (See Haap paragraph 0038; “Test sequences can be allocated to one or several vehicles by the allocation device. Allocation to a single fleet of vehicles or to several fleets of vehicles is also possible. The allocation takes place, for example, with the aid of an identifier. Likewise, depending on the target vehicle(s) or target fleet(s), different execution parameters can be allocated to the final runtime scripts by the allocation device.”).
Regarding claim 8 Fang in view of Zagajac teaches the vehicle of claim 1, Fang does not explicitly teach but Happ teaches, wherein the vehicle is a hybrid vehicle; (See Haap paragraph 0038; “Test sequences can be allocated to one or several vehicles by the allocation device. Allocation to a single fleet of vehicles or to several fleets of vehicles is also possible. The allocation takes place, for example, with the aid of an identifier. Likewise, depending on the target vehicle(s) or target fleet(s), different execution parameters can be allocated to the final runtime scripts by the allocation device.”).
Both Fang and Haap are in the same field of systems for vehicle data management. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Fang vehicle data collection during down-time of the vehicle and/or during service events, wired communication channels, such as when the vehicle network is in communication with a service tool, on-board diagnostics (OBD) instrument, or other physically coupled device with Haap vehicle compiler, conventional truck and other types of vehicles for RUL calculation. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Fang. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Fang et al (Patent No. US20210192867A1) in view of Zagajac (Patent No. DE102015120991A1) and Cella (Patent No. US2010121348A1).
Regarding claim 16 Fang in view of Zagajac teaches the vehicle of clai1, Fang does not explicitly teach but Cella teaches, further comprising: wheel bearings; links in a vehicle suspension; a driveshaft; an engine; a transmission; a differential; and an axle shaft, together arranged to propel the vehicle; (See Cella paragraph 0297; “A smart bands-based data collection template may be used by a drivetrain data collection and routing system to configure sensors, data paths, and data collection resources to perform data collection under certain circumstances, such as those that may indicate an unacceptable trend of drivetrain performance. A data collection system for an industrial drivetrain may include sensing aspects of a non-steering axle, a planetary steering axle, driveshafts, (e.g., main and wing shafts), transmissions, (e g, standard, torque converters, long drop), and the like. A range of data related to these operational parts may be collected.”);
the group consisting of the wheel bearings, the links in the vehicle suspension, the driveshaft, the engine, the transmission, the differential, and the axle shaft; (See Cella paragraph 0365 and 0366; “…The sensors 8106 may provide a continuous or near continuous stream of data over time, periodic readings, event-driven readings, and/or readings according to a selected interval or schedule.
The sensors 8106 may monitor components such as bearings, sets of bearings, motors, driveshafts, pistons, pumps, conveyors, vibrating conveyors, compressors, drills, and the like in vehicles, oil and gas equipment in the field, in assembly line components, and the like…”).
Both Fang and Cella are in the same field of systems for vehicle data management. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Fang vehicle data collection during down-time of the vehicle and/or during service events, wired communication channels, such as when the vehicle network is in communication with a service tool, on-board diagnostics (OBD) instrument, or other physically coupled device with Cella vehicle parts like wheel bearings; links in a vehicle suspension; a driveshaft; an engine; a transmission; a differential; and an axle shaft. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Fang. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Fang does not explicitly teach but Zagajac teaches, thereby degrading a useful life of the vehicle part, and wherein the vehicle part is selected from; (See Zagajac paragraph 0031; “Fig. 2A shows an illustrative system for reporting data related to vehicle system wear and scheduling maintenance”).
Both Fang and Zagajac are in the same field of systems for vehicle data management. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Fang vehicle data collection during down-time of the vehicle and/or during service events, wired communication channels, such as when the vehicle network is in communication with a service tool, on-board diagnostics (OBD) instrument, or other physically coupled device with Zagajac remining useful life determined from data collected and communicated in Fang. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Fang. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LIDIA KWIATKOWSKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5161. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
