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 Claims
This action is in response to applicant’s amendment/response of 22 April 2026.
Claims 1-28 are currently pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments/amendment with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, applicant argued:
Applicant respectfully submits that Spivak does not teach at least "simulating the actuator control signal based on the one or more simulated output parameters," "providing the simulated actuator control signal to the actuator," and "receiving live data collected from the OBD port of the vehicle based on the simulated actuator control signal" as recited in the amended claim 1…. To the contrary, the pulse width signal that is used to control Spivak's fuel injectors 104 is understood to be real, not simulated in the claimed sense, and is only modified (e.g., widened or narrowed) by Spivak's fuel injector simulator element 206. It is still presumably "generated by an engine control unit (ECU, not shown)" as described in paragraph [0017], which would be based on the actual state of the vehicle, e.g., crankshaft position (RPM), engine load (MAP/MAF), oxygen levels, etc., and then modified for the type of alternative fuel being used. Using a simulated pulse width signal would never work in Spivak, since the purpose of Spivak's system is to enable modifications to the real pulse width signal (to allow the use of alternative fuels during actual operation of the vehicle). There is nothing in Spivak that makes up for what Hardesty and Keane lack with respect to "simulating the actuator control signal based on the one or more simulated output parameters," "providing the simulated actuator control signal to the actuator," and "receiving live data collected from the OBD port of the vehicle based on the simulated actuator control signal" as claimed.
The Examiner’s response:
Applicant asserts “Applicant respectfully submits that Spivak does not teach at least "simulating the actuator control signal based on the one or more simulated output parameters," "providing the simulated actuator control signal to the actuator," and "receiving live data collected from the OBD port of the vehicle based on the simulated actuator control signal" as recited in the amended claim 1…. To the contrary, the pulse width signal that is used to control Spivak's fuel injectors 104 is understood to be real, not simulated in the claimed sense, and is only modified (e.g., widened or narrowed) by Spivak's fuel injector simulator element 206. It is still presumably "generated by an engine control unit (ECU, not shown)" as described in paragraph [0017], which would be based on the actual state of the vehicle, e.g., crankshaft position (RPM), engine load (MAP/MAF), oxygen levels, etc., and then modified for the type of alternative fuel being used. Using a simulated pulse width signal would never work in Spivak, since the purpose of Spivak's system is to enable modifications to the real pulse width signal (to allow the use of alternative fuels during actual operation of the vehicle). There is nothing in Spivak that makes up for what Hardesty and Keane lack with respect to "simulating the actuator control signal based on the one or more simulated output parameters," "providing the simulated actuator control signal to the actuator," and "receiving live data collected from the OBD port of the vehicle based on the simulated actuator control signal" as claimed”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the argued “simulated actuator control signal” could be seen as the “modified pulse width signal” of the injector simulator (206) as taught by Spivak. For further clarification, see [0021] of Spivak. Further, the applicant asserts “To the contrary, the pulse width signal that is used to control Spivak's fuel injectors 104 is understood to be real, not simulated in the claimed sense, and is only modified (e.g., widened or narrowed) by Spivak's fuel injector simulator element 206.” The Examiner believes the “modified pulse width signal” outputted by the fuel injector simulator element 206 is simulated since it is outputted by the fuel injector simulator element 206. Furthermore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the “modified pulse width signal” can be seen as an “actuator control signal”, as it is controlling an actuator (e.g. the fuel injector). Additionally, applicant arguments regarding the pulse width signal being used to control the Spivak fuel injector 103 being “real” are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language because the claim does not require a “not real” signal and the applicant’s specification does not clarify what would or would not be a “not real” signal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardesty (US 20160171795 A1) in view of Keane et al. (US 20160328890 A1) and further in view of Spivak (US 20080269980 A1).
Regarding claim 1, and similarly with respect to claims 5, 9, and 21 Hardesty discloses
A method of providing vehicle diagnostics, the method comprising: receiving diagnostic data collected from an on-board diagnostics (OBD) port of a vehicle, the diagnostic data including ([0052] “a separate diagnostic scanner or analyzer (e.g., a Snap-On scanner) not shown) or the OBD2 Cable 252 of the ADS 200/250 may be plugged into an OBD2 port of the vehicle computer 102 in order to monitor the response of the vehicle computer 102 during the sensor simulation of the staircase sweep output 512E. Then, if the vehicle computer 102 fails to provide an appropriate response to each step of the staircase waveform output from the ADS 200/250, the user may be led to conclude that the vehicle computer 102, or that particular sensor input provided by the vehicle sensor wiring harness 110, or the vehicle sensor wiring harness 110 has failed.”)
deriving, from the at least one fault indication and the identification information, one or more simulated output parameters for simulating an ([0044] “the external computer 102 adapted to provide user inputs to the external computer 301, and a memory 230 coupled to the external computer 301, the memory 230 adapted to store user input data associated with a range of vehicle manufacturers makes, models, years, sensor function types, and one or more of a voltage, current, and resistance operational range values of the selected sensor (e.g., 131) to be simulated.”, [0049] “sensor output vs. time diagrams, comprising operational ranges of voltages resistances or milliamperes, for example, wherein the range values of known good sensors will remain between exemplary High and Low limits, such as may be simulated by the sensor simulator of the automotive diagnostic systems”, and [0051] “sensor output plot 512A, illustrates an exemplary simulated output of a known good sensor which provides an output level transition, from an initial high output level at time “0” 506 through time “4”, transitioning between times “4-7”, down to a final sensor output level at time “7” 508 through time “9”. The sensor simulator 302 of ADS 200/250, for example, may be used to simulate this and all the following sensor outputs discussed herein. Sensor output plots 5128 and 512C may illustrate sensor outputs of a failed sensor that is unable to remain between exemplary High limit HL 504 and Low limit LL 502. Sensor output plot 512D illustrates another possible sensor output which remains steady at a low level, and remains between exemplary high and low limits, HL 504 and LL 502 respectively.”)
deriving vehicle condition information from the at least one fault indication and the live data. (960-982, Figure 9A, [0010] The present invention is directed to an automotive diagnostic system (ADS) for testing the integrity of a sensor or other such detector used in the automotive electrical system of a vehicle, in which the automotive diagnostic system simulates the typical operations of a functional sensor, but without any connection to the suspect sensor (independent of the suspect sensor. The automotive diagnostic system or ADS comprises a sensor simulator that is electrically connected into the automotive electrical system to simulate a functional sensor and therefore directly replaces the suspect sensor (or any user selected sensor). During normal vehicle operations, the vehicle computer or Electronic Control Module (ECM) is typically coupled to a vehicle sensor wiring harness which is coupled to the sensor. During a diagnostic mode of the automotive diagnostic system, the vehicle computer or (ECM) is coupled to the vehicle sensor wiring harness which is coupled to the sensor simulator. Connected at this point in the automotive electrical system, the automotive diagnostic system is therefore configured to diagnose and determine whether problems exist with the sensor, the vehicle computer, or the vehicle sensor wiring harness, or in a combination thereof., and [0052] “a separate diagnostic scanner or analyzer (e.g., a Snap-On scanner) not shown) or the OBD2 Cable 252 of the ADS 200/250 may be plugged into an OBD2 port of the vehicle computer 102 in order to monitor the response of the vehicle computer 102 during the sensor simulation of the staircase sweep output 512E. Then, if the vehicle computer 102 fails to provide an appropriate response to each step of the staircase waveform output from the ADS 200/250, the user may be led to conclude that the vehicle computer 102, or that particular sensor input provided by the vehicle sensor wiring harness 110, or the vehicle sensor wiring harness 110 has failed.”)
Hardesty fails to explicitly disclose receiving diagnostic data collected from an on-board diagnostics (OBD) port of a vehicle, the diagnostic data including identification information of the vehicle
Keane et al. teaches receiving diagnostic data collected from an on-board diagnostics (OBD) port of a vehicle, the diagnostic data including identification information of the vehicle and at least one fault indication associated with a component of the vehicle; ([0025] “the diagnostic tools are connected to the ECUs in vehicles to retrieve vehicle information, trouble codes, sensor data from in-vehicle sensors, and to test the operation of one or more systems in the vehicle by generating commands for the ECU. When a diagnostic tool is connected to the ECU in a vehicle, the diagnostic tool retrieves the VIN or other identification information for the vehicle that enables automatic identification of the make and model of the vehicle under test. The diagnostic tool also records a data stream from sensors in the vehicle and any trouble codes from the ECU in the vehicle. Some diagnostic tool embodiments retrieve the diagnostic data in the OBD-II or other industry standard format that enables the diagnostic tool to be operatively connected to a wide range of vehicles.”, and [0037] “the diagnostic tool records error codes, such as the diagnostic trouble codes, operating condition information, and other diagnostic data from the ECU in the vehicle (block 212).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the diagnostic system of Hardesty to incorporate collecting vehicle identification information as taught by Keane et al. for the purpose of enabling “automatic identification of the make and model of the vehicle under test” (Keane, [0025]).
However, Hardesty in combination with Keane fails to explicitly disclose the diagnostic data including identification information of the vehicle and at least one fault indication associated with an actuator of the vehicle; deriving, from the at least one fault indication and the identification information, one or more simulated output parameters for simulating an actuator control signal for controlling the actuator; simulating the actuator control signal based on the one or more simulated output parameters; providing the simulated actuator control signal to the actuator; receiving live data collected from the OBD port of the vehicle based on the simulated actuator control signal generated according to the one or more simulated output parameters and provided to the actuator; and
Spivak teaches the diagnostic data including identification information of the vehicle and at least one fault indication associated with an actuator of the vehicle; (Abstract “A pseudo fuel injector communicates with an onboard diagnostic component to present an expected fuel injector resistance value. The pseudo fuel injector determines the expected fuel injector resistance value and adjusts an adjustable output circuit to present the expected fuel injector resistance value to the onboard diagnostic component. The engine fuel injector is monitored for a fault condition. The pseudo fuel injector simulates a fuel injector fault to the onboard diagnostic component in response to a detected fault condition.”, [0019] “the OBD 102 will (erroneously) report that the fuel injector 104 is in a false state, and turn on a "Check Engine" light. The injector 104 will be identified as faulty to a service scanner through an output port…”, [0020] “General monitor operations of the fuel injectors 104 by the OBD 102 may be wholly preempted, and the OBD 102 will report that all of the fuel injectors 104 are in a fault state.”, [0024] “Generally, different car types utilize different fuel injectors 104 having divergent electrical resistance profiles to each respective OBD 102. In order to enable the injector simulator 206 to be successfully incorporated into multiple different automobiles having divergent fuel injector 104 resistance profiles, the present embodiment further comprises a test resistor 216 located in a circuit series connection to the fuel injectors 104.”) and deriving, from the at least one fault indication and the identification information, one or more simulated output parameters for simulating an actuator control signal for controlling the actuator; ([0022] “The injector simulator 206 comprises a fuel injector monitor 210 configured to check the fuel injectors 104 for problems and otherwise for proper orientation relative to the modified pulse width signals, thus providing the type of OBD 102 circuit fault monitor functions required by governmental regulations. A pseudo fuel injector element 214 is also provided in direct circuit communication with the OBD 102. It is configured to appear to the OBD 102 as the fuel injectors 104. Thus, if a fault in any of the fuel injectors 104 is detected by the fuel injector monitor 210, the pseudo injector element 214 is configured to responsively appear to the OBD 102 as the one or more faulty injectors 104 in the fault condition. In one aspect, the pseudo injector element 214 is configured to appear to the OBD 102 as the fuel injector component 104 to "spoof" the behavior of the actual fuel injectors 104.”) simulating the actuator control signal based on the one or more simulated output parameters; providing the simulated actuator control signal to the actuator; ([0021] “Either the injector simulator 206 or another element (not shown) modifies injector pulse width signals to enable the fuel injectors 104 to efficiently operate on one or more alternative fuels. For example, the pulse widths are widened for E85 or they are narrowed for alternative fuel blends having higher BTU performance characteristics relative to gasoline or diesel fuel blends.”) receiving live data collected from the OBD port of the vehicle based on the simulated actuator control signal generated according to the one or more simulated output parameters and provided to the actuator; ([0021] “Either the injector simulator 206 or another element (not shown) modifies injector pulse width signals to enable the fuel injectors 104 to efficiently operate on one or more alternative fuels. For example, the pulse widths are widened for E85 or they are narrowed for alternative fuel blends having higher BTU performance characteristics relative to gasoline or diesel fuel blends.”, [0022] “The injector simulator 206 comprises a fuel injector monitor 210 configured to check the fuel injectors 104 for problems and otherwise for proper orientation relative to the modified pulse width signals, thus providing the type of OBD 102 circuit fault monitor functions required by governmental regulations. A pseudo fuel injector element 214 is also provided in direct circuit communication with the OBD 102. It is configured to appear to the OBD 102 as the fuel injectors 104. Thus, if a fault in any of the fuel injectors 104 is detected by the fuel injector monitor 210, the pseudo injector element 214 is configured to responsively appear to the OBD 102 as the one or more faulty injectors 104 in the fault condition. In one aspect, the pseudo injector element 214 is configured to appear to the OBD 102 as the fuel injector component 104 to "spoof" the behavior of the actual fuel injectors 104.”, and [0023] “The OBD system 102 is configured to constantly monitor the fuel injectors 104 for faults. In one aspect, it monitors each of the fuel injectors 104 for open fault conditions by monitoring the electrical resistance of each fuel injector 104 and comparing it to one or more threshold values associated with each of said injectors 104. Therefore, the pseudo injector element 214 must present about the same expected resistance or range of resistance values to the OBD 102 in order to "trick" the OBD 102 into perceiving the pseudo injector element 214 as the actual fuel injectors 104 to avoid false problem reports.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the diagnostic system of Hardesty in combination with Keane et al. to incorporate simulating a modified fuel injector control signal, including sending fuel injector faults to the onboard diagnostic component as taught by Spivak for the purpose of diagnosing a fault condition of a vehicle actuator (e.g. fuel injector) “avoiding false problem reports.” ([0023], Spivak)
With the additional limitation of claim 21, Hardesty discloses a data acquisition and transfer device configured to be plugged into an on-board diagnostics (OBD) port of a vehicle; ([0062] “the automotive diagnostic system 200/250, the vehicle sensor wiring harness 110 comprises a computer-side connector 112 for connection to the vehicle computer 102”, and [0072] “the automotive diagnostic system 200/250 is configured and operable to digitally and wirelessly communicate with one or more or a combination of wireless accessory modules, an RF transceiver, a router, a diagnostic scanner, a remote display, an alarm, an OBD2 compatible connector (e.g., at the vehicle computer 102), an OBD2 compatible cable 252, and a sensor 131”)
With the additional limitation of claim 9, Spivak teaches a simulator operable to generate the simulated output of the component according to the one or more simulated output parameters and provide to the simulated actuator control signal to the actuator. ([0022] “The injector simulator 206 comprises a fuel injector monitor 210 configured to check the fuel injectors 104 for problems and otherwise for proper orientation relative to the modified pulse width signals, thus providing the type of OBD 102 circuit fault monitor functions required by governmental regulations. A pseudo fuel injector element 214 is also provided in direct circuit communication with the OBD 102. It is configured to appear to the OBD 102 as the fuel injectors 104. Thus, if a fault in any of the fuel injectors 104 is detected by the fuel injector monitor 210, the pseudo injector element 214 is configured to responsively appear to the OBD 102 as the one or more faulty injectors 104 in the fault condition. In one aspect, the pseudo injector element 214 is configured to appear to the OBD 102 as the fuel injector component 104 to "spoof" the behavior of the actual fuel injectors 104.”, [0023] “The OBD system 102 is configured to constantly monitor the fuel injectors 104 for faults. In one aspect, it monitors each of the fuel injectors 104 for open fault conditions by monitoring the electrical resistance of each fuel injector 104 and comparing it to one or more threshold values associated with each of said injectors 104. Therefore, the pseudo injector element 214 must present about the same expected resistance or range of resistance values to the OBD 102 in order to "trick" the OBD 102 into perceiving the pseudo injector element 214 as the actual fuel injectors 104 to avoid false problem reports.”, and see at least abstract idea)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the diagnostic system of Hardesty in combination with Keane et al. to incorporate simulating a modified fuel injector control signal, including sending fuel injector faults to the onboard diagnostic component as taught by Spivak for the purpose of diagnosing a fault condition of a vehicle actuator (e.g. fuel injector) “avoiding false problem reports.” ([0023], Spivak)
Regarding claim 2, and similarly with respect to claims 6, 10, 18, and 22 Hardesty in view of
Keane et al. and Spivak discloses The method of claim 1,
Keane et al. teaches wherein the at least one fault indication comprises at least one diagnostic trouble code (DTC). ([0037] “the diagnostic tool records error codes, such as the diagnostic trouble codes, operating condition information, and other diagnostic data from the ECU in the vehicle (block 212)… during a service visit the diagnostic tool 116C retrieves diagnostic data at multiple times and sends multiple test commands to the ECU 166 in the vehicle. The mechanic 160 performs one or more service procedures in response to receiving DTCs and other diagnostic data from the diagnostic tool 116C.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the diagnostic system of Hardesty in combination with Keane et al. and Spivak to incorporate the teachings of Keane et al. for the same reasons stated in the motivation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, and similarly with respect to claim 7, Hardesty in view of Keane et al. and
Spivak discloses The method of claim 1,
Spivak teaches wherein the one or more simulated output parameters includes at least one parameter for generating a simulated output selected from the group consisting of a simulated signal for controlling an injector pulse of the vehicle, a simulated signal for controlling an ignitor pulse of the vehicle, and a simulated signal for controlling a solenoid pulse of the vehicle. ([0021] “an alternative fuel injector control system according to the present invention, wherein a fuel injector simulator element 206 is interposed between the OBD 102 and the fuel injector component 104. Either the injector simulator 206 or another element (not shown) modifies injector pulse width signals to enable the fuel injectors 104 to efficiently operate on one or more alternative fuels. For example, the pulse widths are widened for E85 or they are narrowed for alternative fuel blends having higher BTU performance characteristics relative to gasoline or diesel fuel blends.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the diagnostic system of Hardesty in combination with Keane et al. and Spivak to incorporate the teachings of Spivak for the same reasons stated in the motivation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, and similarly with respect to claims 14, 23, and 26 Hardesty in view of
Keane et al. and Spivak discloses The system of claim 10,
Spivak teaches wherein the diagnostic tool is further operable to receive live data collected from the OBD port of the vehicle based on the simulated actuator control signal ([0022] “The injector simulator 206 comprises a fuel injector monitor 210 configured to check the fuel injectors 104 for problems and otherwise for proper orientation relative to the modified pulse width signals, thus providing the type of OBD 102 circuit fault monitor functions required by governmental regulations. A pseudo fuel injector element 214 is also provided in direct circuit communication with the OBD 102. It is configured to appear to the OBD 102 as the fuel injectors 104. Thus, if a fault in any of the fuel injectors 104 is detected by the fuel injector monitor 210, the pseudo injector element 214 is configured to responsively appear to the OBD 102 as the one or more faulty injectors 104 in the fault condition. In one aspect, the pseudo injector element 214 is configured to appear to the OBD 102 as the fuel injector component 104 to "spoof" the behavior of the actual fuel injectors 104.”, and [0023] “The OBD system 102 is configured to constantly monitor the fuel injectors 104 for faults. In one aspect, it monitors each of the fuel injectors 104 for open fault conditions by monitoring the electrical resistance of each fuel injector 104 and comparing it to one or more threshold values associated with each of said injectors 104. Therefore, the pseudo injector element 214 must present about the same expected resistance or range of resistance values to the OBD 102 in order to "trick" the OBD 102 into perceiving the pseudo injector element 214 as the actual fuel injectors 104 to avoid false problem reports.”)
Keane et al. teaches and derive vehicle condition information from the at least on DTC and live data. ([0037] “the diagnostic tool records error codes, such as the diagnostic trouble codes, operating condition information, and other diagnostic data from the ECU in the vehicle (block 212)… during a service visit the diagnostic tool 116C retrieves diagnostic data at multiple times and sends multiple test commands to the ECU 166 in the vehicle. The mechanic 160 performs one or more service procedures in response to receiving DTCs and other diagnostic data from the diagnostic tool 116C.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the diagnostic system of Hardesty in combination with Keane et al. and Spivak to incorporate diagnostic trouble code as taught by Keane et al. for the purpose of identifying a specific problem corresponding to a vehicle component.
Regarding claim 12, and similarly with respect to claims 15, 24, and 27, Hardesty in view of
Keane et al. and Spivak discloses The system of claim 11,
Keane et al. teaches wherein the deriving of the vehicle condition information by the diagnostic tool includes uploading the at least one DTC and the live data to one or more servers and receiving the vehicle condition information from the one or more servers. (Abstract “receiving with the diagnostic tool a component identifier corresponding to a component in the vehicle that is replaced in a service procedure in response to the diagnostic data from the diagnostic tool, transmitting with the diagnostic tool the diagnostic data and the component identifier to a server”, [0025] “the diagnostic tools are connected to the ECUs in vehicles to retrieve vehicle information, trouble codes, sensor data from in-vehicle sensors, and to test the operation of one or more systems in the vehicle by generating commands for the ECU. When a diagnostic tool is connected to the ECU in a vehicle, the diagnostic tool retrieves the VIN or other identification information for the vehicle that enables automatic identification of the make and model of the vehicle under test. The diagnostic tool also records a data stream from sensors in the vehicle and any trouble codes from the ECU in the vehicle. Some diagnostic tool embodiments retrieve the diagnostic data in the OBD-II or other industry standard format that enables the diagnostic tool to be operatively connected to a wide range of vehicles.”, and [0033] “The diagnostic query listeners 156 receive search queries and diagnostic data, such as DTCs and the VIN information, from the diagnostic tool 116”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the diagnostic system of Hardesty in combination with Keane et al. and Spivak to incorporate uploading diagnostic trouble code to a server as taught by Keane et al. for the purpose of identifying a specific problem corresponding to a vehicle component.
Regarding claim 13, and similarly with respect to claims 16, 25, and 28, Hardesty in view of
Keane et al. and Spivak discloses The system of claim 9,
Hardesty teaches wherein the deriving of the one or more simulated output parameters includes ([0060] “The ADS 200/250 further comprises an external computer 301 (non-vehicular computer 301) coupled to the sensor simulator 302 and adapted for controlling the sensor simulator 302 to selectively couple to the vehicle computer 102 and to simulate (e.g., 512A, 512D, 512E, 612A/D, 712, 812) the operation of the (user) selected sensor 130.”, and [0061] “ADS 200/250 may also comprise a user keypad 220 coupled to the external computer 301 adapted to provide user inputs to the external computer 301; and a memory 230 coupled to the external computer 301, the memory 230 is adapted to store user input data associated with a range of vehicle manufacturer's makes, models, years, sensor 130 function types, and one or more of a voltage, current, and resistance operational range values (e.g., 502, 504, 510) of the selected sensor 130 to be simulated (e.g., 512A, 512D, 512E, 612A/D, 712, 812) (e.g., by sensor simulator 302).”)
Keane et al. teaches uploading the at least one fault indication and the identification information to one or more servers (Abstract “receiving with the diagnostic tool a component identifier corresponding to a component in the vehicle that is replaced in a service procedure in response to the diagnostic data from the diagnostic tool, transmitting with the diagnostic tool the diagnostic data and the component identifier to a server”, [0025] “the diagnostic tools are connected to the ECUs in vehicles to retrieve vehicle information, trouble codes, sensor data from in-vehicle sensors, and to test the operation of one or more systems in the vehicle by generating commands for the ECU. When a diagnostic tool is connected to the ECU in a vehicle, the diagnostic tool retrieves the VIN or other identification information for the vehicle that enables automatic identification of the make and model of the vehicle under test. The diagnostic tool also records a data stream from sensors in the vehicle and any trouble codes from the ECU in the vehicle. Some diagnostic tool embodiments retrieve the diagnostic data in the OBD-II or other industry standard format that enables the diagnostic tool to be operatively connected to a wide range of vehicles.”, and [0033] “The diagnostic query listeners 156 receive search queries and diagnostic data, such as DTCs and the VIN information, from the diagnostic tool 116”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the diagnostic system of Hardesty in combination with Keane et al. and Spivak to incorporate uploading diagnostic data to a server as taught by Keane et al. for the purpose of identifying a specific problem corresponding to a vehicle component.
Regarding claim 17, Hardesty discloses A system for providing vehicle diagnostics, the
system comprising: ([0060] “The ADS 200/250 further comprises an external computer 301 (non-vehicular computer 301) coupled to the sensor simulator 302 and adapted for controlling the sensor simulator 302 to selectively couple to the vehicle computer 102 and to simulate (e.g., 512A, 512D, 512E, 612A/D, 712, 812) the operation of the (user) selected sensor 130.”, and [0061] “ADS 200/250 may also comprise a user keypad 220 coupled to the external computer 301 adapted to provide user inputs to the external computer 301; and a memory 230 coupled to the external computer 301, the memory 230 is adapted to store user input data associated with a range of vehicle manufacturer's makes, models, years, sensor 130 function types, and one or more of a voltage, current, and resistance operational range values (e.g., 502, 504, 510) of the selected sensor 130 to be simulated (e.g., 512A, 512D, 512E, 612A/D, 712, 812) (e.g., by sensor simulator 302).”) a simulator (Fig. 3A, 302) operable to generate the simulated ([0043] “The automotive diagnostic system 200 comprises a sensor simulator 302 configured to be selectively coupled to the vehicle computer 102 having the vehicle sensor wiring harness 110 coupled therebetween during a diagnostic mode. The sensor simulator 302 is adapted to simulate an operation of a selected sensor (such as a user selected sensor or a suspect sensor 131 of sensor system 130) to the vehicle computer 102 independent of the selected sensor or a connection means between the sensor and the automotive diagnostic system 200.”, [0044] “the external computer 102 adapted to provide user inputs to the external computer 301, and a memory 230 coupled to the external computer 301, the memory 230 adapted to store user input data associated with a range of vehicle manufacturers makes, models, years, sensor function types, and one or more of a voltage, current, and resistance operational range values of the selected sensor (e.g., 131) to be simulated.”, [0049] “sensor output vs. time diagrams, comprising operational ranges of voltages resistances or milliamperes, for example, wherein the range values of known good sensors will remain between exemplary High and Low limits, such as may be simulated by the sensor simulator of the automotive diagnostic systems”, and [0051] “sensor output plot 512A, illustrates an exemplary simulated output of a known good sensor which provides an output level transition, from an initial high output level at time “0” 506 through time “4”, transitioning between times “4-7”, down to a final sensor output level at time “7” 508 through time “9”. The sensor simulator 302 of ADS 200/250, for example, may be used to simulate this and all the following sensor outputs discussed herein. Sensor output plots 5128 and 512C may illustrate sensor outputs of a failed sensor that is unable to remain between exemplary High limit HL 504 and Low limit LL 502. Sensor output plot 512D illustrates another possible sensor output which remains steady at a low level, and remains between exemplary high and low limits, HL 504 and LL 502 respectively.”)
Hardesty fails to explicitly disclose one or more servers, and one or more servers operable to receive diagnostic data collected from an on- board diagnostics (OBD) port of a vehicle, the diagnostic data including identification information of the vehicle and at least one fault indication associated with a component of the vehicle,
Keane et al. teaches one or more servers operable to receive diagnostic data collected from an on-board diagnostics (OBD) port of a vehicle, the diagnostic data including identification information of the vehicle and at least one fault indication associated with an actuator of the vehicle (Abstract “receiving with the diagnostic tool a component identifier corresponding to a component in the vehicle that is replaced in a service procedure in response to the diagnostic data from the diagnostic tool, transmitting with the diagnostic tool the diagnostic data and the component identifier to a server”, [0025] “the diagnostic tools are connected to the ECUs in vehicles to retrieve vehicle information, trouble codes, sensor data from in-vehicle sensors, and to test the operation of one or more systems in the vehicle by generating commands for the ECU. When a diagnostic tool is connected to the ECU in a vehicle, the diagnostic tool retrieves the VIN or other identification information for the vehicle that enables automatic identification of the make and model of the vehicle under test. The diagnostic tool also records a data stream from sensors in the vehicle and any trouble codes from the ECU in the vehicle. Some diagnostic tool embodiments retrieve the diagnostic data in the OBD-II or other industry standard format that enables the diagnostic tool to be operatively connected to a wide range of vehicles.”, and [0033] “The diagnostic query listeners 156 receive search queries and diagnostic data, such as DTCs and the VIN information, from the diagnostic tool 116”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the diagnostic system of Hardesty to incorporate uploading diagnostic data to a server as taught by Keane et al. for the purpose of identifying a specific problem corresponding to a vehicle component.
However, Hardesty in combination with Keane et al. fails to explicitly disclose derive, from the at least one fault indication and the identification information, one or more simulated output parameters for simulating an actuator control signal for controlling the actuator; and simulator operable to generate the simulated actuator control signal according to the one or more simulated output parameters and provide the simulated actuator control signal to the actuator.
Spivak teaches derive, from the at least one fault indication and the identification information, (Abstract “A pseudo fuel injector communicates with an onboard diagnostic component to present an expected fuel injector resistance value. The pseudo fuel injector determines the expected fuel injector resistance value and adjusts an adjustable output circuit to present the expected fuel injector resistance value to the onboard diagnostic component. The engine fuel injector is monitored for a fault condition. The pseudo fuel injector simulates a fuel injector fault to the onboard diagnostic component in response to a detected fault condition.”, [0019] “the OBD 102 will (erroneously) report that the fuel injector 104 is in a false state, and turn on a "Check Engine" light. The injector 104 will be identified as faulty to a service scanner through an output port…”, [0020] “General monitor operations of the fuel injectors 104 by the OBD 102 may be wholly preempted, and the OBD 102 will report that all of the fuel injectors 104 are in a fault state.”, [0024] “Generally, different car types utilize different fuel injectors 104 having divergent electrical resistance profiles to each respective OBD 102. In order to enable the injector simulator 206 to be successfully incorporated into multiple different automobiles having divergent fuel injector 104 resistance profiles, the present embodiment further comprises a test resistor 216 located in a circuit series connection to the fuel injectors 104.”) one or more simulated output parameters for simulating an actuator control signal for controlling the actuator; and simulator operable to generate the simulated actuator control signal according to the one or more simulated output parameters and provide the simulated actuator control signal to the actuator. ([0021] “Either the injector simulator 206 or another element (not shown) modifies injector pulse width signals to enable the fuel injectors 104 to efficiently operate on one or more alternative fuels. For example, the pulse widths are widened for E85 or they are narrowed for alternative fuel blends having higher BTU performance characteristics relative to gasoline or diesel fuel blends.”, [0022] “The injector simulator 206 comprises a fuel injector monitor 210 configured to check the fuel injectors 104 for problems and otherwise for proper orientation relative to the modified pulse width signals, thus providing the type of OBD 102 circuit fault monitor functions required by governmental regulations. A pseudo fuel injector element 214 is also provided in direct circuit communication with the OBD 102. It is configured to appear to the OBD 102 as the fuel injectors 104. Thus, if a fault in any of the fuel injectors 104 is detected by the fuel injector monitor 210, the pseudo injector element 214 is configured to responsively appear to the OBD 102 as the one or more faulty injectors 104 in the fault condition. In one aspect, the pseudo injector element 214 is configured to appear to the OBD 102 as the fuel injector component 104 to "spoof" the behavior of the actual fuel injectors 104.”, and [0023] “The OBD system 102 is configured to constantly monitor the fuel injectors 104 for faults. In one aspect, it monitors each of the fuel injectors 104 for open fault conditions by monitoring the electrical resistance of each fuel injector 104 and comparing it to one or more threshold values associated with each of said injectors 104. Therefore, the pseudo injector element 214 must present about the same expected resistance or range of resistance values to the OBD 102 in order to "trick" the OBD 102 into perceiving the pseudo injector element 214 as the actual fuel injectors 104 to avoid false problem reports.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the diagnostic system of Hardesty in combination with Keane et al. to incorporate simulating a modified fuel injector control signal, including sending fuel injector faults to the onboard diagnostic component as taught by Spivak for the purpose of diagnosing a fault condition of a vehicle actuator (e.g. fuel injector) “avoiding false problem reports.” ([0023], Spivak)
Regarding claim 19, and similarly with respect to claim 20, Hardesty in view of Keane et al.
and Spivak discloses The system of claim 18,
Hardesty discloses and derive vehicle condition information from (([0052] “a separate diagnostic scanner or analyzer (e.g., a Snap-On scanner) not shown) or the OBD2 Cable 252 of the ADS 200/250 may be plugged into an OBD2 port of the vehicle computer 102 in order to monitor the response of the vehicle computer 102 during the sensor simulation of the staircase sweep output 512E. Then, if the vehicle computer 102 fails to provide an appropriate response to each step of the staircase waveform output from the ADS 200/250, the user may be led to conclude that the vehicle computer 102, or that particular sensor input provided by the vehicle sensor wiring harness 110, or the vehicle sensor wiring harness 110 has failed.”)
Keane et al. teaches wherein the one or more servers is further operable to receive live data collected from the OBD port of the vehicle (Abstract “receiving with the diagnostic tool a component identifier corresponding to a component in the vehicle that is replaced in a service procedure in response to the diagnostic data from the diagnostic tool, transmitting with the diagnostic tool the diagnostic data and the component identifier to a server”, [0025] “the diagnostic tools are connected to the ECUs in vehicles to retrieve vehicle information, trouble codes, sensor data from in-vehicle sensors, and to test the operation of one or more systems in the vehicle by generating commands for the ECU. When a diagnostic tool is connected to the ECU in a vehicle, the diagnostic tool retrieves the VIN or other identification information for the vehicle that enables automatic identification of the make and model of the vehicle under test. The diagnostic tool also records a data stream from sensors in the vehicle and any trouble codes from the ECU in the vehicle. Some diagnostic tool embodiments retrieve the diagnostic data in the OBD-II or other industry standard format that enables the diagnostic tool to be operatively connected to a wide range of vehicles.”, and [0033] “The diagnostic query listeners 156 receive search queries and diagnostic data, such as DTCs and the VIN information, from the diagnostic tool 116”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the diagnostic system of Hardesty in combination with Keane et al. and Spivak to incorporate uploading diagnostic trouble code to a server as taught by Keane et al. for the purpose of identifying a specific problem corresponding to a vehicle component.
Spivak teaches receive live data collected from the OBD port of the vehicle based on the simulated actuator control signal ([0022] “The injector simulator 206 comprises a fuel injector monitor 210 configured to check the fuel injectors 104 for problems and otherwise for proper orientation relative to the modified pulse width signals, thus providing the type of OBD 102 circuit fault monitor functions required by governmental regulations. A pseudo fuel injector element 214 is also provided in direct circuit communication with the OBD 102. It is configured to appear to the OBD 102 as the fuel injectors 104. Thus, if a fault in any of the fuel injectors 104 is detected by the fuel injector monitor 210, the pseudo injector element 214 is configured to responsively appear to the OBD 102 as the one or more faulty injectors 104 in the fault condition. In one aspect, the pseudo injector element 214 is configured to appear to the OBD 102 as the fuel injector component 104 to "spoof" the behavior of the actual fuel injectors 104.”, and [0023] “The OBD system 102 is configured to constantly monitor the fuel injectors 104 for faults. In one aspect, it monitors each of the fuel injectors 104 for open fault conditions by monitoring the electrical resistance of each fuel injector 104 and comparing it to one or more threshold values associated with each of said injectors 104. Therefore, the pseudo injector element 214 must present about the same expected resistance or range of resistance values to the OBD 102 in order to "trick" the OBD 102 into perceiving the pseudo injector element 214 as the actual fuel injectors 104 to avoid false problem reports.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the diagnostic system of Hardesty in combination with Keane et al. and Spivak to incorporate the teachings of Spivak for the same reasons stated in the motivation of claim 17.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardesty (US 20160171795 A1) in view of Keane et al. (US 20160328890 A1), in view of Spivak (US 20080269980 A1) and further in view of Shibi (US 20100023203 A1).
Regarding claim 4, and similarly with respect to claim 8, Hardesty in view of Keane et al. and
Spivak discloses The method of claim 1,
Hardesty discloses wherein the one or more simulated output parameters includes ([0029] “The ADS further comprises a memory coupled to the external computer, adapted to store user input data associated with a range of vehicle manufacturer's makes, models, years, sensor function types, and one or more of a voltage, current and resistance operational range values of the selected sensor to be simulated…automotive diagnostic system may also include a user interface having a display for viewing various vehicle status conditions and sensor preset values, and may include pushbuttons for selecting various modes or for entering the sensor preset values.”, [0030] “the automotive diagnostic system, the external computer, keypad and memory are adapted to receive and store user input data associated with a selected manufacturers' make, model, year vehicle, and the function type of the selected sensor to be simulated by the sensor simulator. The keypad also enables the user to enter, select or adjust a typical operational value or range of values, or one or more High/Low limits of the selected sensor. The automotive diagnostic system is also adapted to determine whether a problem exists in one or more of the sensor or sensor system, the vehicle computer, and the vehicle sensor wiring harness, and to diagnose a likely problem therein”, and [0051] “sensor output plot 512A, illustrates an exemplary simulated output of a known good sensor which provides an output level transition, from an initial high output level at time “0” 506 through time “4”, transitioning between times “4-7”, down to a final sensor output level at time “7” 508 through time “9”. The sensor simulator 302 of ADS 200/250, for example, may be used to simulate this and all the following sensor outputs discussed herein. Sensor output plots 5128 and 512C may illustrate sensor outputs of a failed sensor that is unable to remain between exemplary High limit HL 504 and Low limit LL 502.”)
Spivak teaches the simulator being operable to generate the simulated actuator control signal. ([0022] “The injector simulator 206 comprises a fuel injector monitor 210 configured to check the fuel injectors 104 for problems and otherwise for proper orientation relative to the modified pulse width signals, thus providing the type of OBD 102 circuit fault monitor functions required by governmental regulations. A pseudo fuel injector element 214 is also provided in direct circuit communication with the OBD 102. It is configured to appear to the OBD 102 as the fuel injectors 104. Thus, if a fault in any of the fuel injectors 104 is detected by the fuel injector monitor 210, the pseudo injector element 214 is configured to responsively appear to the OBD 102 as the one or more faulty injectors 104 in the fault condition. In one aspect, the pseudo injector element 214 is configured to appear to the OBD 102 as the fuel injector component 104 to "spoof" the behavior of the actual fuel injectors 104.”, [0023] “The OBD system 102 is configured to constantly monitor the fuel injectors 104 for faults. In one aspect, it monitors each of the fuel injectors 104 for open fault conditions by monitoring the electrical resistance of each fuel injector 104 and comparing it to one or more threshold values associated with each of said injectors 104. Therefore, the pseudo injector element 214 must present about the same expected resistance or range of resistance values to the OBD 102 in order to "trick" the OBD 102 into perceiving the pseudo injector element 214 as the actual fuel injectors 104 to avoid false problem reports.”, and see at least the abstract)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the diagnostic system of Hardesty in combination with Keane et al. and Spivak to incorporate the teachings of Spivak for the same reasons stated in the motivation of claim 17.
However, Hardesty in combination with Keane et al. and Spivak fails to explicitly disclose user instructions for connecting a simulator to the vehicle
Shibi teaches user instructions for connecting a simulator to the vehicle ([0037] “screen shots are shown to better illustrate how the set of predetermined instructions are communicated interactively with the user in a step-by-step manner using a series of visuals as described above. Using the same example above, the first diagnostic step can be communicated to the user through an exemplary visual as illustrated in screen shot 50, which includes a 3D animation of the vehicle along with an instructive step. The second diagnostic step can be communicated to the user through another exemplary visual as illustrated in screen shot 52.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the diagnostic system of Hardesty in combination with Keane et al. and Spivak to incorporate instructions for diagnosing vehicle components as taught by Shibi for the purpose of “assisting the user in correcting vehicle faults/failures.” (Shibi, [0034])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ikeda et al. (US 20230401904 A1) teaches a test system for testing a test piece that is a vehicle or a part of the vehicle including a sensor and an electronic control device including a vehicle diagnostic function that acquires an output signal from the sensor, and that makes a diagnosis of the vehicle or the part of the vehicle, the test system includes a simulation signal generation device that is provided on a line between the sensor and the electronic control device, and that outputs a simulation signal simulating an output signal from the sensor to the electronic control device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MISA HUYNH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/MISA H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights