DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is a Non-Final Rejection. This action is in response to the application filed on July 31, 2023.
Claims 1-10 have been canceled.
Claims 11-19 have been added.
Claims 11-19 are pending and rejected.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on July 31, 2023; September 19, 2023; and August 22, 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant should be aware that there is claim language that does not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art and/or provide an additional element that can be a consideration for eligibility1. See MPEP 2103(c).
Intended Use
Intended use language is generally not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II) ("A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).”); see also MPEP 2103(C). Examples of claim limitations that are often found to precede intended use include “adapted to,” “capable of,” “sufficient to,” “whereby,” and “for.”
The following limitations include intended use limitations:
Claim 12: “wherein the at least two different versions are provided for at least two different geographic regions” (The purpose of the two versions does not affect the operation of the claimed invention.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation 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 14 and 15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the at least two different versions of the characterizing software comprises a plurality of different versions of the characterizing software, and the input is virtually tested by the plurality of different versions characterizing software.” It is unclear what is meant by “a plurality of different versions of the characterizing software” as it appears in this claim. For example, it is not clear how it further narrows or defines “the at least two different versions of the characterizing software.” Applicant should clarify this limitation so that the scope is clear. For purposes of examination, “a plurality of different versions of the characterizing software” is being interpreted as the same as “the at least two different versions of the characterizing software.”
Claim 15 recites “wherein the at least two different versions of the characterizing software is editable by an operator of the central electronic computing device.” It is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted to mean that the software itself is edited or that the selection of which software to test is editable. For purposes of examination, the latter interpretation is being used.
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 11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmert, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0137033 A1 and Guo, CN 111309611 A (published June 19, 2020).
Claim 11:
Ohmert teaches:
providing a central electronic computing device of the virtual test bench (see at least Ohmert, paragraph 0041 (“Example computing devices include, but are not limited to, personal computers, server computers, hand-held or laptop devices, mobile devices (such as mobile phones, Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs, media players, and the like), multiprocessor systems consumer electronics, mini computers, mainframe computers, distributed computing environments that include any of the above systems or devices, and the like.”)).
enabling a data communication between a decentral electronic computing device and the central electronic computing device (see at least Ohmert, paragraph 0015 (“e.g., the application developer may be developing the application on a laptop, personal computer, server, etc.” The application developer’s device is the claimed “decentral electronic computing device.); paragraph 0046).
transmitting an input of a user of the decentral electronic computing device to the central electronic computing device via the data communication (see at least Ohmert, paragraph 0019 (“The application developer may invoke a simulation command for simulating the application code of the application, which may be received through the application development environment, at 102. … In an example, the vehicle parameter signal may be provided by the application developer through a vehicle input component user interface of a simulation environment within the application development environment.”)).
virtually testing, by the central electronic computing device, the input of the user (see at least Ohmert, paragraph 0019 (“At 106, a vehicle parameter signal of the vehicle parameter may be simulated. In an example, the vehicle parameter signal may be provided by the application developer through a vehicle input component user interface of a simulation environment within the application development environment.”)).
transmitting, by the central electronic computing device, a result of the virtual testing to the decentral electronic computing device via the data communication; and displaying the result on a display device of the decentral electronic computing device for the user (see at least Ohmert, Figure 5; paragraph 0024 (“At 110, the simulation result may be provided through the application development environment. In an example, the simulation result may be displayed as an interactive driver emulation experience through the simulation environment. For example, the simulation result may correspond to how a user interface of the application will be displayed through a vehicle display (e.g., the vehicle profile may apply various constraints to the user interface such as a particular resolution, color scheme, font, display location, etc.).”)).
Ohmert does not explicitly teach, but Guo, however, does teach:
and providing at least two different versions of characterizing software of the at least one head unit on the central electronic computing device (see at least Guo, page 15 (“parallel test module 14, according to a test node and test strategy for each software product creation, parallel executing test case corresponding to each software product version.”); claim 1 on page 16).
depending on the provided at least two different versions of the characterizing software, wherein the at least two different versions of the characterizing software are virtually tested simultaneously (see at least Guo, page 15 (“parallel test module 14, according to a test node and test strategy for each software product creation, parallel executing test case corresponding to each software product version.”); claim 1 on page 16).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Guo’s method of simultaneously testing more than one version of software with Ohmert’s vehicle application testing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of efficiently testing more than one version of software at the same time. This requires less time and fewer resources than separately testing each version.
Claim 13:
Ohmert further teaches:
wherein the central electronic computing device is a cloud server (see at least Ohmert, paragraph 0041 (“Example computing devices include, but are not limited to, personal computers, server computers, hand-held or laptop devices, mobile devices (such as mobile phones, Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs, media players, and the like), multiprocessor systems consumer electronics, mini computers, mainframe computers, distributed computing environments that include any of the above systems or devices, and the like.”)).
Claim 14:
Ohmert does not explicitly teach, but Guo, however, does teach:
wherein the at least two different versions of the characterizing software comprises a plurality of different versions of the characterizing software, and the input is virtually tested by the plurality of different versions characterizing software (see at least Guo, page 15 (“parallel test module 14, according to a test node and test strategy for each software product creation, parallel executing test case corresponding to each software product version.”); claim 1 on page 16).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Guo’s method of simultaneously testing more than one version of software with Ohmert’s vehicle application testing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of efficiently testing more than one version of software at the same time. This requires less time and fewer resources than separately testing each version.
Claim 15:
Ohmert does not explicitly teach, but Guo, however, does teach:
wherein the at least two different versions of the characterizing software is editable by an operator of the central electronic computing device (see at least Guo, page 12 (“the version name and number of the software product according to the input, creating a test strategy of the test node and the corresponding respectively to each version of the software product…”); page 13 (“a command receiving module for receiving input command software product a plurality of versions of the same test”)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Guo’s method of selecting which software versions to test with Ohmert’s vehicle application testing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of allowing a user to select which versions of the software should be included in the test.
Claim 16:
Ohmert further teaches:
wherein a plurality of different head units of a plurality of different motor vehicles is virtually tested by the virtual test bench (see at least Ohmert, paragraph 0004 (“The application development environment may provide access to various application programming interfaces for data acquisition and interaction with various types of vehicles.”)).
Claim 17:
Ohmert further teaches:
wherein the central electronic computing device comprises a display emulator for virtual testing of a virtual display of the at least one head unit and the virtual display is transmitted to the decentral electronic computing device via the data communication and displayed on the display device (see at least Ohmert, paragraph 0024 (“At 110, the simulation result may be provided through the application development environment. In an example, the simulation result may be displayed as an interactive driver emulation experience through the simulation environment. For example, the simulation result may correspond to how a user interface of the application will be displayed through a vehicle display (e.g., the vehicle profile may apply various constraints to the user interface such as a particular resolution, color scheme, font, display location, etc.). In this way, the application developer may be able to visually test and interact with the user interface of the application as it would be displayed to a driver while operating the vehicle.”)).
Claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 19:
Claim 18 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmert, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0137033 A1; Guo, CN 111309611 A (published June 19, 2020); and Liang, CN 105760293 A (published July 13, 2016).
Claim 12:
Ohmert does not explicitly teach, but Liang, however, does teach:
wherein the at least two different versions are provided for at least two different geographic regions (see at least Liang, page 16 (“issuing different languages for different countries and regions of software products is common. Before issuing a software product needs to be strict software test, facing software of different language platform and continuously upgraded version of code of software testing is more and more, the number of the test code will be maintained by language platform number equivalent to the product of the number of versions, such a case can also be referred to as test code nexplosive”)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Liang’s method of testing different country/language versions of software with Ohmert’s vehicle application testing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of efficiently testing more than one regional version of software at the same time. This requires less time and fewer resources than separately testing each version.
Relevant Prior Art
The following reference(s) are relevant to Applicant’s invention:
Uckun et al., U.S. Patent Number 8,726,203 B1. This reference teaches a system for generating virtual test benches.
Email Communications
Per MPEP 502.03, Applicant may authorize email communications by filing Form PTO/SB/439, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, via the USPTO patent electronic filing system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH H ROSEN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1850 and email address is elizabeth.rosen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM ET - 7 PM 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, Michael Anderson, can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, 3693
1 See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) (“Examiners should keep in mind that in order to qualify as a "treatment" or "prophylaxis" limitation for purposes of this consideration, the claim limitation in question must affirmatively recite an action that effects a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. An example of such a limitation is a step of "administering amazonic acid to a patient" or a step of "administering a course of plasmapheresis to a patient." If the limitation does not actually provide a treatment or prophylaxis, e.g., it is merely an intended use of the claimed invention or a field of use limitation, then it cannot integrate a judicial exception under the "treatment or prophylaxis" consideration. For example, a step of "prescribing a topical steroid to a patient with eczema" is not a positive limitation because it does not require that the steroid actually be used by or on the patient, and a recitation that a claimed product is a "pharmaceutical composition" or that a "feed dispenser is operable to dispense a mineral supplement" are not affirmative limitations because they are merely indicating how the claimed invention might be used.”)
Prosecution Insights