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 .
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Status of the Claims
This is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment of 18 February 2026. Claims 1-14 and 21-27 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Amendment and/or Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-8, 10, 14, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amirpour et al. (US 2014/0052329 A1 hereinafter Amirpour) in view of Keane et al. (US 2016/0328890 A1 hereinafter Keane).
Regarding claim 1 (similarly claims 8 and 21), Amirpour teaches A method implemented by a computer (see at least Abstract), the method comprising:
calibrating a camera or sensor of a vehicle while a diagnostic scan tool is connected to the vehicle; (see at least Fig. 1-5, 8 [0033-0076]: ECU of a vehicle is/are connected to a VCI via a standardized vehicle interface. After the repair, vehicle 10 is moved to a fourth workstation 44 at which the vehicle geometry of vehicle 10 may be measured and the chassis may be set. With the aid of the communication between fourth vehicle inspection device 3d and VCI 1 via central diagnostic server device, the newly installed steering angle sensor may be automatically calibrated by vehicle inspection device 3d after the completion of the chassis measurement setting, since the necessary identification of vehicle 10 are already presented in VCI 1.)
obtaining a set of log data from the camera or sensor of the vehicle by performing one or more scans of the vehicle while the diagnostic scan tool is connected to the vehicle, the log data documenting the calibrating with information related to operations completed; (see at least Fig. 1-5, 8 [0033-0076]: After the repair, vehicle 10 is moved to a fourth workstation 44 at which the vehicle geometry of vehicle 10 may be measured and the chassis may be set. With the aid of the communication between fourth vehicle inspection device 3d and VCI 1 via central diagnostic server device, the newly installed steering angle sensor may be automatically calibrated by vehicle inspection device 3d after the completion of the chassis measurement setting, since the necessary identification of vehicle 10 are already presented in VCI 1. The identification data of vehicle 10 may also already be used for preparing the measurement and setting of the chassis. After preparing a result protocol, VCI 1 may be disconnected again from vehicle 10 upon completion of the repair shop visit. In a step 55 , the repair shop order may then be completed, and the data and the result protocols of the repair shop visit may be stored in a central repair shop system, e.g., central repair shop server 45 , for repeated use during a future repair shop visit of the customer or vehicle 10 .)
saving the set of log data in association with identity information of the vehicle on a server computer that is communicatively connected to the diagnostic scan tool; (see at least Fig. 1-5, 8 [0033-0076]: After the repair, vehicle 10 is moved to a fourth workstation 44 at which the vehicle geometry of vehicle 10 may be measured and the chassis may be set. With the aid of the communication between fourth vehicle inspection device 3d and VCI 1 via central diagnostic server device, the newly installed steering angle sensor may be automatically calibrated by vehicle inspection device 3d after the completion of the chassis measurement setting, since the necessary identification of vehicle 10 are already presented in VCI 1. The identification data of vehicle 10 may also already be used for preparing the measurement and setting of the chassis. After preparing a result protocol, VCI 1 may be disconnected again from vehicle 10 upon completion of the repair shop visit. In a step 55 , the repair shop order may then be completed, and the data and the result protocols of the repair shop visit may be stored in a central repair shop system, e.g., central repair shop server 45 , for repeated use during a future repair shop visit of the customer or vehicle 10 .) and
receiving a report from the server computer, the report documenting successful completion of the calibrating and including the identity information of the vehicle. (Examiner notes that since Amirpour discloses that ( e.g. in Fig.5 steps 51h, 52c, 53e, 54e) result protocol(s) is/are printed/prepared after diagnostic tests of vehicle (such that repair shop can communicate necessary repair orders with the customer), after defective sensor part is identified from additional troubleshooting, after work order of repair/replacement of sensor is performed, and subsequently after sensor calibration is completed.” However, in order for the repair shop to repeatedly use the “data and result protocols of the repair shop visit” during a future repair visit of vehicle/customer, if not inherent/implicit in Amirpour, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to configure a vehicle diagnosing and repairing system/method as taught by Amirpour such that, after completion of sensor replacement and calibration, a report documenting the successful completion of the calibration and including identity information of the vehicle (e.g. VIN, make and model) is received from a server computer, in order to confirm that sensor repair and calibration is performed on the vehicle, log the repair activity in a centralized manner and to ensure future reference to the sensor calibration history during future repair shop visit and doing so would ensure that service history of the vehicle is tracked properly.)
It may be alleged that Amirpour does not expressly reveal that the log data documenting the calibrating with information related to operations completed and time spent in the calibrating;
Keane is directed to system and method for automotive diagnostic tool data collection and analysis, Keane teaches the log data documenting the calibrating with information related to operations completed and time spent in the calibrating; (see at least Fig. 1-5 [0005, 0018-0065]: The diagnostic tool 116 C also transmits a service record to the diagnostic analysis system 104 when the diagnostic tool 116 C is disconnected from the vehicle to enable a listener program to identify the length of time for each session between a diagnostic tool and a vehicle. The diagnostic tool 116 C records a timestamp corresponding to the time of generation for each set of diagnostic data to enable analysis of the time at which each test or operation is performed. In the system 100 , the diagnostic tools transmit the diagnostic data to the diagnostic analysis system 104 without requiring additional input from a mechanic or otherwise presenting distractions to the mechanic.)
Examiner notes that while Keane does not explicitly disclose time spent on “calibration”, it teaches recording time stamps and session timing for diagnostic operations and primary reference Amirpour teaches performing sensor calibration using a diagnostic scan tool. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of timestamp logging vehicle repair procedure and time duration for the service procedures and the degree of success for the service procedures of Keane to the calibration procedure of Amirpour’s system with reasonable expectation of success in order to track and analyze service operation and doing so would reduce operational cost for time spent on manually recording service hours and human error.
Regarding claim 3 (similarly claims 10 and 23), the combination of Amirpour in view of Keane teaches The method of claim 1 (similarly claims 8 and 21), further comprising:
Amirpour does not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle identity information comprises a vehicle identification number (VIN) of the vehicle
Keane is directed to system and method for automotive diagnostic tool data collection and analysis, Keane teaches wherein the vehicle identity information comprises a vehicle identification number (VIN) of the vehicle. (see at least [0025]: 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.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amirpour’s system and method for identifying, diagnosing, maintaining and repairing a vehicle to incorporate the technique of associating a vehicle identification number (VIN) of the vehicle identity information as taught by Keane with reasonable expectation of success to ensure diagnostic and repair data are properly associated and identified with the correct vehicle.
Regarding claim 7 (similarly claim 14), the combination of Amirpour in view of Keane teaches The method of claim 1 (similarly claim 8), further comprising:
Amirpour does not explicitly teach date-stamping the set of log data prior to saving the set of log data on the server computer
Keane is directed to system and method for automotive diagnostic tool data collection and analysis, Keane teaches date-stamping the set of log data prior to saving the set of log data on the server computer. (see at least Fig. 1 [0019, 0027-0040]: The diagnostic analysis system 104 stores the service records, replacement component identifiers, and any other data received from the diagnostic tools in the diagnostic history database 112 in association with the identifier of the diagnostic tool, an identifier for the customer account in the customer database 108 , the VIN or other identifier for the vehicle that is connected to the diagnostic tool, and a timestamp of when the diagnostic tool receives data or sends a command to the ECU in the vehicle. During the course of vehicle maintenance, the diagnostic tool can send multiple records to the diagnostic analysis system 104 (i.e. server) that are stored in the diagnostic database 112 .)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amirpour’s system and method for identifying, diagnosing, maintaining and repairing a vehicle to incorporate the technique of date-stamping the set of diagnostic data prior to saving the set of log data on the server computer as taught by Keane with reasonable expectation of success to ensure vehicle repair and maintenance service record are properly documented.
Claim(s) 2, 4-6, 9, 11-13 22, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amirpour in view of Keane and Chen (US 2017/0267192 A1).
Regarding claim 2 (similarly claims 9 and 22), the combination of Amirpour in view of Keane teaches The method of claim 1 (similarly claims 8 and 21), further comprising:
The combination of Amirpour in view of Chen does not explicitly teach transmitting the report to an insurance claims management system.
Chen is directed to vehicle repair shop verification system, Chen teaches transmitting the report to an insurance claims management system. (see at least Fig. 1-3 [0038-0072]: When repairs have purportedly been completed, data and information may be retrieved from the vehicle (at a second time), and from such data and information, the system 10 may generate a second report 54, or a third report 56, which is representative of the repairs being complete and the VIN being verified. In this regard, the completeness of the repairs is associated with the absence of fault codes or problem data in the report. As such, when all repairs are complete, a signal indicating an absence of diagnostic data may be generated by the vehicle 12 and received by the remote database 36. All of the data, information, pictures and reports generated by the system 10 may be accessed through the cloud 38 by several entities, including but not limited to, a repair shop 48, an insurance company 50, and other third party service provider 48a.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Amirpour and Keane to incorporate the technique of transmitting the report to an insurance claims management system as taught by Chen with reasonable expectation of success such that the repair report provides an objective assessment as to the incompleteness/thoroughness of the repairs, as well as an indication of potentially fraudulent behavior, in view of the VIN not being verified (Chen [0059]).
Regarding claim 4 (similarly claims 11 and 24), the combination of Amirpour in view of Keane teaches The method of claim 3 (similarly claims 10 and 23), further comprising:
the combination of Amirpour in view of Keane does not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle identity information further comprises year, make, model, and model options of the vehicle.
Chen is directed to vehicle repair shop verification system, Chen teaches Chen further teaches wherein the vehicle identity information further comprises year, make, model, and model options of the vehicle. (see at least [0040-0062]: the vehicle identification information may be used to identify the vehicle information such as year, made, model, engine, trim, etc.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Amirpour and Keane to incorporate the technique of associating a vehicle identification number (VIN) of the vehicle identity information that comprises year, make, model, and model options of the vehicle as taught by Chen with reasonable expectation of success to ensure that all necessary components have been repaired or replaced and to identify any unauthorized component replacement to ensure that the sensor electronic systems are compatible with all replacement parts and properly operational before cars put back to service (Chen [0010]) and thus improving roadway operational safety.
Regarding claim 5 (similarly claims 12 and 25), the combination of Amirpour in view of Keane teaches The method of claim 3 (similarly claims 10 and 23), further comprising:
the combination of Amirpour in view of Keane does not explicitly teach receiving an order VIN of an order; and verifying the order VIN matches the VIN of the vehicle; and verifying the order VIN matches the VIN of the vehicle.
Chen is directed to vehicle repair shop verification system, Chen teaches receiving an order VIN of an order; and verifying the order VIN matches the VIN of the vehicle. (see at least [0040-0062]: The VIN information and license plate information received at the remote storage database 36 may also be used by an automobile verification module 44 to ensure that all of the retrieved VINs from a given vehicle 12 (e.g., VINs extracted from multiple ECUs or electrical systems on the vehicle 12 ) match up with each other, as well as with the VIN associated with the license plate 30. The automobile verification module 44 may also be configured to verify that one or more electrical components on the vehicle 12 are compatible with the VIN.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Amirpour and Keane to incorporate the technique of receiving an order VIN of an order; and verifying the order VIN matches the VIN of the vehicle as taught by Chen with reasonable expectation of success to ensure that all necessary components have been repaired or replaced and to identify any unauthorized component replacement to ensure that the sensor electronic systems are compatible with all replacement parts and properly operational before cars put back to service (Chen [0010]) and thus improving roadway operational safety.
Regarding claim 6 (similarly claims 13 and 26), the combination of Amirpour in view of Keane teaches The method of claim 3 (similarly claims 10 and 23), further comprising:
the combination of Amirpour in view of Keane does not explicitly teach receiving an insurance claim VIN of an insurance claim; and verifying the insurance claim VIN matches the VIN of the vehicle.
Chen is directed to vehicle repair shop verification system, Chen teaches receiving an insurance claim VIN of an insurance claim; and verifying the insurance claim VIN matches the VIN of the vehicle. (see at least [0040-0062]: When repairs have purportedly been completed, data and information may be retrieved from the vehicle (at a second time), and from such data and information, the system 10 may generate a second report 54 , which is shown in FIG. 2B. The second report 54 shows that the VIN is not verified, which is an indication that one of the sources of the VIN has likely been tampered with during the repair. When one of the retrieved VINs may not match with the others, or the retrieved VINs may not match with the license plate. When VIN tampering has been detected, the incompatibility alert signal may also be used to generate a report with the insurance company, and local crime authorities.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Amirpour and Keane to incorporate the technique of receiving an insurance claim VIN of an insurance claim; and verifying the insurance claim VIN matches the VIN of the vehicle as taught by Chen with reasonable expectation of success to ensure that all necessary components have been repaired or replaced and to identify any unauthorized component replacement to ensure that the sensor electronic systems are compatible with all replacement parts and properly operational before cars put back to service (Chen [0010]) and thus improving roadway operational safety.
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amirpour in view of Keane and Zeng et al. (US 2012/0290169 A1 hereinafter Zeng).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Amirpour in view of Keane teaches The method of claim 1,
The combination of Amirpour in view of Keane does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more scans comprises a pre-calibration scan made before calibrating the camera or sensor and a post-calibration scan made after calibrating the camera or sensor.
Zeng is directed to system and method for object detection sensor alignment, Zeng teaches wherein the one or more scans comprises a pre-calibration scan made before calibrating the camera or sensor and a post-calibration scan made after calibrating the camera or sensor. (see at least Fig. 1-8 [0019-0043]: A technician tool 40 is connected to the vehicle 10 so as to communicate with the controller, and is used by a technician to perform a virtual sensor (e.g. camera) alignment and authorizes storage of new alignment calibration parameters. Sensor alignment can be refined and validated using a dynamic on-road test under controlled conditions. In the test environment, the vehicle is being driven by the service technician, and the technician tool is still communicating with the controller. An alignment calibration parameter value is calculated and stored for each onboard sensor which requires virtual alignment. Using the technician tool 40 , the service technician commands the controller 32 to store the refined alignment calibration values in the memory module 36 .)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Amirpour in view of Keane to incorporate the technique of performing one or more scans of a pre-calibration scan made before calibrating the camera and a post-calibration scan made after calibrating the camera as taught by Zeng with reasonable expectation of success to ensure object detection sensors are aligned properly so as to minimize or eliminate conflicting sensor readings (Zeng [0005]) and doing so would improve roadway safety.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DANA F ARTIMEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3410. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-3:30 pm EST.
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, Faris S. Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/DANA F ARTIMEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights