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 final action is in response to Applicant’s remarks filed 01/22/2026.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-16 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant has amended claim 1 and added new claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4, and 6-15 rejected under 35 USC § 103 have been considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that none of the references discloses the features of “…the command signal including a countermeasure that instructs at least one of the vehicle and a vehicle assembly including the vehicle component and the further vehicle components to enter a new state, wherein the new state deactivates at least one of the vehicle component and the vehicle assembly or a vehicle function when a lack of roadworthiness is detected…” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Examiner acknowledges the individually challenged references do not recite the feature directly or explicitly, the rejection is based on a combination and modification of references of record. Mayer is directed toward detecting and alerting a user to faulty components in a vehicle based on collected component data, modified by the references: Whitney, which suggests adjusting the vehicle to operate in a different state based on the data result (see at least ¶ [0006], [0034], and [0040-0043] disclosing a vehicle exhaust system monitoring the condition of air flow sensors and, if sensor degradation is detected, changing the vehicle exhaust system operation parameters accordingly); Hathaway, which suggests determining the viability of components against roadworthiness standards (see at least ¶ [0036-0037] disclosing a central monitoring station performing a roadworthiness assessment using data from a heavy duty vehicle, assessing essential components to meet roadworthiness compliance); and Westlund, which suggests disabling a vehicle system associated with faults detected (see at least ¶ [0050] disclosing a means for collecting and identifying vehicle log data, where an identified problem is detected and an action component responds by limiting or disabling an associated vehicle system). These combinations and modifications with at least Mayer have a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward monitoring vehicle operation to detect signs of potential failure, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated incorporate them to improve safety and operational awareness of the vehicle for a user.
Applicant is reminded that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 20110130916 A1; provided in IDS filed 08/04/2023) in view of Whitney et al. (US 20180291832 A1), Jones et al. (US 20140358357 A1; provided in IDS filed 10/24/2025), Hathaway et al. (US 20170092020 A1), and Westlund (US 20200402328 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mayer discloses a system for detecting a state of a vehicle component (see at least abstract), the system comprising:
a server computer (see at least ¶ [0058] and [0066-0067] disclosing a remote monitoring and diagnostic system (RDS) server for receiving hybrid vehicle drivetrain component status) configured to:
receive vehicle data from a vehicle, the vehicle data describing a state of a vehicle component and further vehicle components that differ from the vehicle component (see at least ¶ [0063], [0076], and [0137-0138] disclosing the RDS receiving and analyzing the vehicle data for failures or faults of vehicle components and subsystems);
a vehicle component of the vehicle (see at least ¶ [0054-055] and [0066-0067] disclosing where a hybrid vehicle’s drivetrain components are monitored for their status and maintenance);
control computer of the vehicle, the control computer configured to control the vehicle component and detect vehicle data describing a state of the vehicle component (see at least ¶ [0063-0068] and [0076] disclosing a remote diagnostic unit that collects vehicle component data to send to the RDS server);
and a data transmission device configured to transmit the vehicle data to the server computer (see at least ¶ [0068-0069] disclosing the RDU transmitting hybrid drive system information to the RDS),
evaluate the vehicle data of the vehicle component and the further vehicle components (see at least ¶ [0056], [0063-0068], [0076], and [0137-0138] disclosing a remote diagnostic unit (RDU) that collects vehicle component data to send to the RDS for analyzing to determine if one or more components and/or subsystems are faulty or failed), and establish a current state of the at least one of the vehicle and a vehicle assembly including the vehicle component and the further vehicle components based on an evaluation result (see at least ¶ [0063], [0076], and [0137-0138] disclosing the RDU and RDS analyzing the vehicle data for failures or faults);
and produce a command signal based on the evaluation result and transmit the command signal to the vehicle as a function of the current state of at least one of the vehicle and a vehicle assembly including the vehicle component and the further vehicle components (see at least ¶ [0137-0138] and [0147] where the RDS server sends alerts and commands to a failed/faulty vehicles following analysis and directs the RDU to adjust setting and interface information in response to failed/faulty alerts),
wherein the vehicle component is an active vehicle component configured to provide vehicle data for detection by the vehicle (see at least ¶ [0152] disclosing the assortment of vehicle components and subsystems providing data to the RDU and RDS server).
Mayer does not explicitly disclose the command signal instructs at least one of the vehicle and a vehicle assembly including the vehicle component and the further vehicle components to enter a new state.
However, Whitney suggests the command signal including a countermeasure that instructs at least one of the vehicle and a vehicle assembly including the vehicle component and the further vehicle components to enter a new state (see at least ¶ [0006], [0034], and [0040-0043] disclosing a vehicle exhaust system monitoring the condition of air flow sensors and, if sensor degradation is detected, changing the vehicle exhaust system operation parameters accordingly).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the degradation-based system control of Whitney into the vehicle remote diagnostic system of Mayer with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward monitoring vehicle operation to detect signs of potential failure. This would allow the data from a plurality of controllers to be evaluated to make a judgment of the functionability of a vehicle component.
The combination of Mayer and Whitney does not disclose at least one of the further vehicle components is a passive vehicle component that cannot provide the vehicle data for detection by the vehicle.
However, Jones suggests at least one of the further vehicle components is a passive vehicle component that cannot provide the vehicle data for detection by the vehicle (see at least ¶ [0060] and [0062] disclosing detecting malfunctions to vehicle components that may or may not be capable of sending diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) related to the malfunction).
Jones demonstrates that individual vehicle components as part of collections of components further part of vehicle subsystems may not report data to a diagnostic device, though the subsystem it is a part of would report a fault. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the trouble reporting methods of Jones into the combination of Mayer and Whitney with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward diagnosing vehicle systems comprised of multiple reporting and non-reporting components. This would allow for a diagnostic device to recognize faults in a system even if a component was incapable or directly reporting a fault.
The combination of Mayer, Whitney, and Jones does not explicitly disclose the data includes measures for roadworthiness of the vehicle based on the state of the vehicle component and the further vehicle components;
establishing a current state based on at least the measures for roadworthiness;
and wherein the new state deactivates at least one of the vehicle component and the vehicle assembly or a vehicle function when a lack of roadworthiness is detected.
However, Hathaway suggests the data includes measures for roadworthiness of the vehicle based on the state of the vehicle component and the further vehicle components (see at least ¶ [0036-0037] disclosing a central monitoring station performing a roadworthiness assessment using data from a heavy duty vehicle, assessing essential components to meet roadworthiness compliance);
establishing a current state based on at least the measures for roadworthiness (see at least ¶ [0036-0037] disclosing a central monitoring station performing a roadworthiness assessment using data from a heavy duty vehicle, assessing essential components to meet roadworthiness compliance).
Additionally, Westlund suggests the new state deactivates at least one of the vehicle component and the vehicle assembly or a vehicle function when a problem is detected (see at least ¶ [0050] disclosing a means for collecting and identifying vehicle log data, where an identified problem is detected and an action component responds by limiting or disabling an associated vehicle system).
Hathaway and Westlund suggest establishing a current state with respect to at least roadworthiness, and wherein the new state deactivates at least one of the vehicle component and the vehicle assembly or a vehicle function when a lack of roadworthiness is detected because they demonstrate that meeting conditions of roadworthiness are standards that can be tested and diagnosed to determine if a vehicle component, assembly, and/or system is in compliance, and should a vehicle component, assembly, and/or system fall out of compliance it facilitates the need to limit or disable the system until a problem is resolved. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the roadworthiness assessment of Hathaway and the deactivation response of Westlund into the combination of Mayer, Whitney, and Jones with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward monitoring vehicle operation to detect signs of potential failure. This would help prevent the vehicle components, assemblies, and/or systems from operating in a faulty state that would either endanger the vehicle occupants or exacerbate the identified fault.
Regarding claim 2, Mayer discloses the server computer is configured to authenticate the vehicle based on the evaluation result (see at least ¶ [0117] and [0133] disclosing the system having security measures to provide authorized user access).
Regarding claim 4, Mayer discloses the vehicle includes a control computer (see at least ¶ [0063-0068] and [0076] disclosing a remote diagnostic unit (RDU) that collects vehicle component data to send to the RDS server) and the vehicle component is configured to provide the vehicle data for detecting by the control computer (see at least ¶ [0063-0068] and [0076] disclosing a remote diagnostic unit (RDU) that collects vehicle component data to send to the RDS server).
wherein at least one vehicle component of the further vehicle components is configured in not to provide the vehicle data (see at least ¶ [0055] disclosing conventional vehicles possessing mechanical components and data about their state is inferred rather than directly provided by the component),
and wherein the server computer is configured to establish a state of the at least one vehicle component by based on the result of evaluating the vehicle data (see at least ¶ [0063], [0076], and [0137-0138] disclosing the RDU and RDS analyzing the vehicle data for failures or faults).
Regarding claim 6, Mayer discloses the server is configured to send the command signal to a data transmission device of the vehicle (see at least ¶ [0064] disclosing the RDU including a communication bus receiver to receive signals from the RDS server).
(see at least ¶ [0064] disclosing the RDU including a communication bus receiver to receive signals from the RDS server)
and wherein the control computer is configured to change a state of the vehicle component and/or of the assembly as a function of the command signal (see at least ¶ [0138] and [0147] disclosing the RDS commands direct the RDU to adjust setting and interface information in response to failed/faulty alerts).
Regarding claim 7, Mayer discloses the server computer is configured to produce a state describing signal containing a description of the current state of the vehicle component and/or of the assembly and/or of the vehicle, as a function of the current state of the vehicle component and/or of the assembly and/or of the vehicle (see at least ¶ [0137-0138] where the RDS server sends alerts and commands to a failed/faulty vehicles following analysis).
Regarding claim 16, Mayer does not explicitly disclose determining at least one of a probability of component failure, a critical state of wear of the vehicle component and the further vehicle components, an illegal manipulation of the vehicle component and the further vehicle components from the evaluation.
However, Whitney suggests determining at least one of a probability of component failure, a critical state of wear of the vehicle component and the further vehicle components, an illegal manipulation of the vehicle component and the further vehicle components from the evaluation (see at least ¶ [0045-0048] and Figs. 4-5 disclosing diagnosing an exhaust sensor according to a probability along a diagnostic pass curve).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the probabilistic, degradation-based system control of Whitney into the vehicle remote diagnostic system of Mayer with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward monitoring vehicle operation to detect signs of potential failure. This would allow the data from a plurality of controllers to be evaluated to make a judgment of the functionability of a vehicle component, and with greater accuracy to assessing component failure.
Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of Whitney et al., Jones et al, Hathaway et al., and Westlund, as applied to claims 6-7 above, and in view of Dai et al. (US 20190012852 A1; provided in IDS filed 08/04/2023).
Regarding claim 8, Mayer discloses the server computer is configured to transmit the state describing signal to the vehicle (see at least ¶ [0137-0138] where the RDS server sends alerts and commands to a failed/faulty vehicles following analysis).
The combination of Mayer, Whitney, Jones, Hathaway, and Westlund does not explicitly wherein state describing signal instructs the control computer to control a display device to display a message associated with the current state of the vehicle component and/or of the assembly and/or of the vehicle.
However, Dai teaches wherein state describing signal instructs the control computer to control a display device (see at least ¶ [0009] disclosing the vehicle includes a heads-up display) to display a message associated with the current state of the vehicle component and/or of the assembly and/or of the vehicle (see at least ¶ [0034] and [0078-0081] disclosing a display controller and processor used to notify a user through the display regarding vehicle failure information).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the notification display of Dai into the combination of Mayer, Whitney, Jones, Hathaway, and Westlund with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward monitoring vehicle operation to detect signs of potential failure. This would allow the diagnostic system to communicate the information to the vehicle and alert any passengers of potential danger.
Regarding claim 9, Mayer discloses a data processing device external to the server computer and the vehicle (see at least ¶ [0058-0063] and [0067-0068] and Figs. 2-3A disclosing user devices acting as RDS server clients),
wherein the data processing device is configured to receive the state describing signal and to provide information as a function of the state describing signal (see at least ¶ [0058-0063] and [0067-0068] and Figs. 2-3A disclosing user devices acting as RDS server clients that receive diagnostic information from the RDU and/or RDS server).
Regarding claim 10, Mayer discloses the server computer is further configured to establish a current state of the vehicle component and/or of the assembly and/or of the vehicle with respect to a conformity requirement and/or a maintenance state and/or an integrity and/or a safety requirement by evaluating the vehicle data (see at least ¶ [0056] and [0076] disclosing vehicle component data being used to determine if a component is faulty or failed).
Regarding claim 11, Mayer discloses the server computer is configured to store the received vehicle data for a period of time (see at least ¶ [0045] and [0078] disclosing the data being time stamped and held for a given span of time).
Regarding claim 12, Mayer discloses the server computer is configured to create data characterizing a vehicle profile of the vehicle by evaluating the vehicle data stored over the period of time (see at least ¶ [0077], [0097], [0116], and [0137-0138] disclosing vehicle data being stored for later selection for a user device retrieving data on that vehicle for failure/fault or maintenance records),
and wherein the data characterizing the vehicle profile contain vehicle configuration-specific data and/or user-specific data and/or wear-specific data and/or data describing the dynamic behavior of the vehicle component and/or of the assembly (see at least ¶ [0077], [0097], [0116], and [0137-0138] disclosing vehicle data being stored for later selection for a user device retrieving data on that vehicle for failure/fault or maintenance records).
Regarding claim 13, Mayer discloses the server computer is configured to compare the received vehicle data with the vehicle data stored over the period of time and/or the data characterizing the vehicle profile, and to establish the state of the vehicle component and/or of the assembly and/or of the vehicle on the basis of the comparison (see at least ¶ [0080] and [0119] disclosing vehicle data analysis includes comparing failure flags against predetermined thresholds).
Regarding claim 14, Mayer discloses the server computer is configured to calculate data which characterizes the behavior to be expected of the vehicle component and/or of the assembly (see at least ¶ [0101-0107] disclosing the remote diagnostic system using virtual turnstile units to gather passenger information and calculate corresponding statistics of the vehicle’s operation),
and wherein the server computer is configured to establish the state of the vehicle component and/or of the assembly and/or of the vehicle, in that the server computer compares the data characterizing the behavior to be expected with the transmitted vehicle data (see at least ¶ [0101-0107] disclosing the remote diagnostic system using virtual turnstile units to gather passenger information and calculate corresponding statistics as part of vehicle data analysis).
Regarding claim 15, Mayer does not explicitly disclose the server computer is configured to establish the data characterizing the behavior to be expected by means of mathematical models.
However, Whitney suggests the server computer is configured to establish the data characterizing the behavior to be expected by means of mathematical models (see at least ¶ [0045-0046] and [0051-0052] and Figs. 4-5 disclosing mathematical methods employed to process sensor signal data).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the mathematical methods of Whitney into the vehicle remote diagnostic system of Mayer with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward monitoring vehicle operation to detect signs of potential failure. One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware that data analysis and processing require data manipulation and calculations.
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 JARED C BEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5255. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.
/J.C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669