DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 2/5/2026. Claims 1-5, 8-17 and 19-23 are pending.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/5/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/2/2026 with respect to the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-5, 8-17 and 19-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument that claim 11 has been amended such that a person of ordinary skill in the art can readily determine the relationships among its relationships has been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection to claim 11 has been withdrawn.
It is noted that Applicant’s amendments to claim 21 have overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Specification
The amendments to the specification were received on 2/2/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 10, the limitation “an indication for each CS message of the source CS component” should read “an indication for each CS message of a source CS component” to provide consistency with the recitations for the CS components of the first mapping of “a recipient CS component” in lines 11 and 15, “a source CS component” in line 15, and “a receiving CS component” in lines 16-17.
In claim 1, lines 16-17, “linking the source CS component to a receiving CS component” should read “linking the source CS component to a recipient CS component” to make it clear that the receiving and recipient components are the same components.
In claim 1, lines 25-26, “identifying an ECU that is included as one of the CS components” should read “identifying an ECU that may be included as one of the CS components” to make it clear that the ECUs recited in lines 7 and 22 may or may not be the same ECU.
In claim 1, lines 32-34, “that, for each of a plurality of ES DTCs and CS DTCs, correlates each DTC to one or more ES symptoms, CS symptoms, ES components, and CS components” should read “that correlates each ES DTC and CS DTC to one or more of the ES symptoms, CS symptoms, ES components, or CS components” to make it clear that the unified mapping includes the previously recited claim elements.
In claim 1, line 36, the indent of the line should be increased to make it clear that the automatic traversing is performed by the troubleshooting tool.
In claims 15-16, line 2, “1Q_identify” should read “to identify”. This appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-17 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, lines 29-31, the limitation “parsing engineering artifacts … to extract component names, symptoms, and failure modes” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the parsed symptoms, and failure modes are related to the plurality of CS symptoms and CS failure modes recited in line 9, and the ES failure modes and ES symptoms recited in line 22. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the engineering artifacts are parsed to extract the CS and ES symptoms and failure modes.
Regarding claim 1, lines 36-37, the limitation “using the set of reported error codes” renders the claim indefinite because the set of reported error codes lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim, therefore, it is unclear what is used to traverse the unified mapping data structure. Page 18, lines 26-34, disclose one or more error codes may be input to the troubleshooting tool by a maintenance technician or a vehicle, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claim includes receiving a set of reported error codes from a user or vehicle.
Regarding claim 1, lines 38-39, the limitation “associating the system malfunction with one or more identified vehicle components” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the vehicle components include the CS components recited in line 4 and/or the ES components recited in line 20. It is further unclear how the step of identifying at least one system malfunction that spans at least one ES components and at least one CS component recited in lines 37-38 is different from the step of associating the system malfunction with one or more identified vehicle components. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that vehicle components are the ES and CS components, and the system malfunction is associated with the ES and CS components by identifying at least one system malfunction that spans at least one ES component and at least one CS component.
Regarding claim 2, lines 3-4, the limitation “extract … component names” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the extracted components names are related to the component names extracted in claim 1, line 31. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that both claims are directed to the same component name extraction.
Regarding claim 2, line 5, the limitation “data from a failure modes and effects analysis document” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the failure modes and effects analysis document is the same failure modes and effects analysis document parsed in claim 1, lines 29-30. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that both claims are directed to parsing and matching information from the same failure modes and effects analysis document.
Regarding claim 4, line 2, the limitation “parsing an electrical wiring harness design” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the electrical wiring harness design is related to the electrical wiring harness design parsed in claim 1, lines 29-31. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that both claims are directed to parsing the same electrical wiring harness design.
Regarding claim 4, lines 3-4, the limitation “extract component, connection, and failure mode information” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the extracted component, connection, and failure mode information are related to the component names and failure modes extracted in claim 1, line 31, and the connections among the ES components mapped in claim 1, line 21. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that both claims are directed to extracting the component names, connections, and failure modes from the electrical wiring harness design and the failure modes and effects analysis document.
Regarding claim 4, lines 4-5, the limitation “data from a failure modes and effects analysis document” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the failure modes and effects analysis document is the same failure modes and effects analysis document parsed in claim 1, lines 29-30. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that both claims are directed to parsing and matching information from the same failure modes and effects analysis document.
Regarding claim 11, lines 16-18, the limitation “correlates, for each of a plurality of DTCs from the ES components and the CS components, the DTC to one or more ES components, CS components, and associated failure modes” renders the claim indefinite because the relationships between the DTCs and the ES and CS components are unclear. The Examiner suggests the limitation should read “correlates each ES DTC and CS DTC to one or more of the ES components or CS components, and associated failure modes”, in a similar manner as claim 1.
Regarding claims 15-16, line 2, the limitation “report to a user” renders each claim indefinite because it is unclear if the user is the same user reported to in claim 11, lines 24-25. The claims do not appear to be directed to multiple users of the troubleshooting tool, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that each dependent claim is directed to the same user recited in the independent claim.
Regarding claim 15, line 2, the limitation “report … a component failure” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the component failure is the first component failure identified in line 4, the second component failure identified in line 7, or the identified component failure reported in claim 1, lines 24-25. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that claim 11 includes reporting one or more identified component failures, and claim 15 additionally recites reporting the first and second component failures to the user.
Regarding claim 16, line 2, the limitation “report … a component failure” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the component failure is one of the potential failures identified in line 4, is intended to reference the test recommended in line 7, or is the identified component failure reported in claim 1, lines 24-25. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that claim 16 is directed to recommending to the user a test to be performed.
Regarding claim 20, line 2, the limitation “ES signals … further comprise analog signals that represent physical measurements” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the analog signals are related to the analog signals that are recited as being the ES signals in claim 1, line 23. The Examiner suggests the limitation should read “the analog signals represent physical measurements”.
Regarding claim 22, lines 2-3, “correlates … to … an associated vehicle component” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the vehicle components are related to the CS components recited in claim 1, line 4 and/or the ES components recited in claim 1, line 20. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that claim 22 is directed to correlating the CS DTCs and ES DTCs to the CS and ES components.
Regarding claim 22, lines 1-3, the limitation “generating the unified mapping comprises creating the computer-stored unified mapping data structure that correlates each of the CS DTCs and ES DTCs to a specific failure mode and an associated vehicle component” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the creating step is different than the step of “generating … a computer-stored unified mapping data structure that, for each of a plurality of ES DTCs and CS DTCs, correlates each DTC to one or more ES symptoms, CS symptoms, ES components, and CS components” recited in claim 1, lines 32-34. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that claims 1 and 22 are directed to the same step of generating the computer-stored unified mapping.
Regarding claim 23, lines 1-2, the limitation “the failure modes and effects analysis document comprises engineering artifacts” renders the claim indefinite because claim 1, lines 29-30, recite parsing engineering artifacts comprising at least a failure modes and effects analysis document, therefore, it is unclear how the failure modes and effects analysis document is related to the engineering artifacts. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the engineering artifacts document system design performance, and comprise the failure modes and effects document.
Regarding claim 23, lines 3-5, the limitation “the relationship chains are generated at least in part by automatically parsing the engineering artifacts to extract component interdependencies and failure propagation pathways” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the component interdependencies and failure propagation pathways are related to the connections between symptoms and source and recipient CS components, and the path CS components linking the source CS components and receiving CS components, that comprise the relationship chains generated in claim 1, line 14. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that claim 23 is directed to automatically parsing the engineering artifacts to extract the connections between each symptom to a source CS component and a recipient CS component, and identify each path CS component linking the source CS component to the recipient CS component.
Claims 2-5, 8-10, 12-17 and 19-23 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 8-17, and 19-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights