DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/30/2026 has been entered. An action on the RCE follows.
Status of the application
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's amendments and arguments filed on 03/30/2026. Claims 1-21 are pending for this examination.
Acknowledgement
This Office action has been issued in response to reconsideration request filed on 03/30/2026. Claims 1- 21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered and addressed. Accordingly, this action has been made non-final.
Applicant’s arguments in substance are as follows:Applicant argues on page 10, bottom of second paragraph “Particularly, the Advisory Action contends that the specification does not disclose or suggest vehicle components located at different geographic locations. Applicant respectfully disagrees. For Example, Applicant's specification at paragraph [0053] of the published application discloses (emphasis added):
[0053] According to embodiments, at least a portion of the plurality of nodes 130-1 to 130-N may be located at a geographical location different from the test case management system 110, different from one or more of the plurality of UEs 120-1 to 120-N, and/or different from another portion of the plurality of nodes 130-1 to 130-N.”
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Let us review the claim as a whole. Claim recites “presenting, to a user, a first graphical user interface (GUI) comprises information of one or more test cases available to the user;
receiving, from the user, a user input defining a user selection of a test case from among the one or more available test cases;”. This teaches that using one GUI one test case is selected.
Claim further recites “performing at least one operation for managing the user-selected test case including executing one or more software instructions associated with user-selected test case on a first vehicle hardware component at a first geographic location and a second vehicle hardware component or a software component at a second geographic location different from the first geographic location.” This shows that the one test case which was selected by the user using one GUI, that test case is being executed on two different vehicles (or nodes).
Please note that specification teaches different test cases were selected and these test cases are executing on different nodes. Paragraph [0053] recites “According to embodiments, at least a portion of the plurality of nodes 130-1 to 130-N may be located at a geographical location different from the test case management system 110, different from one or more of the plurality of UEs 120-1 to 120-N, and/or different from another portion of the plurality of nodes 130-1 to 130-N.” Please note that UE means “User Equipment”, which includes an GUI. This paragraph refers to Fig. 1. According to Fig. 1 there are multiple nodes and multiple GUIs (or UEs). It does not mention from one GUI one test was selected which gets executed on multiple nodes.
Paragraph [0054] last sentence recites “In this regard, the portion of the plurality of nodes 130-1 to 130-N may receive one or more test cases (e.g., test case built
by the user, test case associated with the user, etc.) from the test case management system 110, and may be configured to utilize the received test case( s) to automatically perform a testing on the desired software and/or hardware components based thereon.” This teaches one or more test cases are received from the test case management system by the plurality of nodes. This does not mention that one user selected test case, selected using one GUI, was received by the plurality of nodes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for adding new matter to claims. An amendment to the claim 1 has added the limitation of “a first vehicle hardware component at a first geographic location and a second vehicle hardware component or a software component at a second geographic location different from the first geographic location.” Claim 11 has substantially similar claim limitations been added as claim 1.
This limitation has no antecedent basis in the specification and/or drawings as originally filed because that subject matter is not described in the application as originally filed. To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession of the amended claim.
Claims 2-10 and 12-21 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAIN MORSHED whose telephone number is (571)272-3335. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday12:00 PM – 9 PM Eastern Time. The email address for the examiner is hossain.morshed@uspto.gov.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone or 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, Wei Mui can be reached on (571) 272-3708.
/HOSSAIN M MORSHED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191 April 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights