DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the response filed on 12/31/2025.
Claims 1-27 are now pending in this application. Claims 1, 10, and 20 have been amended. New claims 22-27 have been added. Claims 1, 10, and 20 are independent claims.
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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Each of claims 22, 24, and 26 recite determining the vehicle identification information and configuring the DAT prior to obtaining a VIN from the vehicle (or similar variations thereof). Examiner respectfully notes that the specification does not indicate any restriction of order associated with obtaining a VIN with regards to the DAT configuration and determining the vehicle identification information, as claimed in each of claims 22, 24, and 26 . The disclosure merely indicates that the configuring step may include identifying an ECU to send a request for a VIN [see e.g. [0013] and [0038] of the specifications, as filed]. Therefore, this aspect has been determined to raise new matter issues.
Each of claims 23, 25, and 27 depend from claims 22, 24, and 26, respectively and further recite that any request for a VIN is transmitted only after the configuring of the DAT is completed (or similar variations thereof). Examiner respectfully notes that the specification does not indicate any restriction of order associated with requesting a VIN with regards to the completion of the DAT configuration, as claimed in each of claims 23, 25, and 27 . Again, the disclosure merely indicates that the configuring step may include identifying an ECU to send a request for a VIN [see e.g. [0013] and [0038] of the specifications, as filed]. Therefore, this aspect has been determined to raise new matter issues.
Examiner Comment
New claims 22-2 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement because of the issue of new matter that is being raised as indicated above. Accordingly, these new claims have not been further treated on the merits.
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 1-3, 7, 10-13, 17, and 20 are rejected under35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, US PGPUB 2009/0276115 Al (hereinafter as Chen I) in view of BELSOEUR et al., US PGPUB 2023/0401910 Al (hereinafter as Belsoeur).
Regarding independent claim 1, Chen I teaches a method of determining an identity of an electric vehicle [see e.g. [0019] and fig. 5; see also [0006 and [0011] indicating electrical features of the vehicle], the method comprising the steps of:
sending an initialization command from a data acquisition and transfer device (DAT) to a vehicle computer via a diagnostic port on the vehicle [note Step 212 of fig. 5 indicating initiation signals sent to the onboard computer of a vehicle from a diagnostic device via a connector];
receiving, at the DAT, an initial response signal from the vehicle computer via the diagnostic port in response to the initialization command, the initial response signal being devoid of vehicle identification information [note the confirmation signal received in step 214 (with output YES) of fig. 5 and note that the confirmation signal is received in response to the initiation signals of step 212; further note that vehicle identification information is not exchanged until later steps 216 and 218 in the procedure];
determining vehicle identification information of the vehicle [see step 218 of fig. 5];
accessing a configuration database having configuration instructions matched with vehicle identification information, the configuration instructions being associated with a vehicle-specific tool functionality [see [0015] and note accessing a protocol database containing diagnostic protocols specific to received vehicle identification data; see also [0062]]; and
configuring the DAT to implement the vehicle-specific tool functionality based on the determined vehicle identification information of the vehicle [see [0015] and note the configuration of the tool based on the vehicle identification data; see also [0063]].
Chen I does not explicitly teach that the initial response signal includes a list of response addresses associated with respective systems on the vehicle.
Neither does it explicitly teach comparing the list of response addresses included in the initial response signal to a response address database having lists of response addresses matched with vehicle identification information to determine vehicle identification information of the vehicle.
Belsoeur teaches a method of determining an identity of a vehicle [see e.g. title and fig. 1], the method comprising a response signal that includes a list of response addresses associated with respective systems on the vehicle [see [0061]-[0062] and steps 100 and 105 of fig. 1].
Belsoeur further teaches comparing the list of response addresses included in the response signal to a response address database having lists of response addresses matched with vehicle identification information to determine vehicle identification information of the vehicle [see [0063] and step 110 of fig. 1 indicating comparing the received data with a database 4 thus determining identification data 135 related to the vehicle].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Chen I and Belsoeur, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the instructions taught by Chen I for determining vehicle identification by explicitly specifying that the initial response signal includes a list of response addresses associated with respective systems on the vehicle, and comparing the list of response addresses included in the initial response signal to a response address database having lists of response addresses matched with vehicle identification information to determine vehicle identification information of the vehicle, as per the teachings of Belsoeur. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable the utilization of a listening approach for recognizing vehicle identification data before proceeding to communication in a manner that eliminates the risk of creating unexpected faults on the vehicle, as suggested by Belsoeur [see e.g. [0008] and [0016]].
Regarding independent claim 10, Chen I also teaches a method of determining an identity of an electric vehicle [see e.g. [0019] and fig. 5], the method comprising the steps of:
sending an initialization command from a data acquisition and transfer device (DAT) to a vehicle computer via a diagnostic port on the vehicle [note step 212 of fig. 5 indicating initiation signals sent to the onboard computer of a vehicle from a diagnostic device via a connector];
receiving, at the DAT, an initial response signal from the vehicle computer via the diagnostic port in response to the initialization command, the initial response signal being devoid of vehicle identification information [note the confirmation signal received in step 214 (with output YES) of fig. 5 and note that the confirmation signal is received in response to the initiation signals of step 212; further note that vehicle identification information is not exchanged until later steps 216 and 218 in the procedure];
determining vehicle identification information of the vehicle [see step 218 of fig. 5]; and
configuring the DAT to implement the vehicle-specific tool functionality based on the determined vehicle identification information of the vehicle [see [0015] and note accessing a protocol database containing diagnostic protocols specific to received vehicle identification data and the configuration of the tool based on the vehicle identification data; see also [0062]-[0063]].
Chen I does not explicitly teach that the initial response signal includes a list of response addresses associated with respective systems on the vehicle.
Neither does it explicitly teach comparing the list of response addresses included in the initial response signal to a response address database having lists of response addresses matched with vehicle identification information to determine vehicle identification information of the vehicle.
Belsoeur teaches a method of determining an identity of a vehicle [see e.g. title and fig. 1], the method comprising a response signal that is devoid of vehicle identification information and includes a list of response addresses associated with respective systems on the vehicle [see [0061]-[0062] and steps 100 and 105 of fig. 1; note that the identification of the vehicle occurs after processing and recognizing the matching of the responses to a certain type/model, etc. of vehicle corresponding to the responses/messages which means that the initial response signal is devoid of vehicle identification information].
Belsoeur further teaches comparing the list of response addresses included in the response signal to a response address database having lists of response addresses matched with vehicle identification information to determine vehicle identification information of the vehicle [see [0063] and step 110 of fig. 1 indicating comparing the received data with a database 4 thus determining identification data 135 related to the vehicle].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Chen I and Belsoeur, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the instructions taught by Chen I for determining vehicle identification by explicitly specifying that the initial response signal includes a list of response addresses associated with respective systems on the vehicle, and comparing the list of response addresses included in the initial response signal to a response address database having lists of response addresses matched with vehicle identification information to determine vehicle identification information of the vehicle, as per the teachings of Belsoeur. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable the utilization of a listening approach for recognizing vehicle identification data before proceeding to communication in a manner that eliminates the risk of creating unexpected faults on the vehicle, as suggested by Belsoeur [see e.g. [0008] and [0016]].
Regarding independent claim 20, Chen I also teaches a vehicle diagnostic device [see title and fig. 1 and [0034] as well as 10 of fig. 8] comprising:
a housing [note the housing 14 described in [0034]];
a memory circuit located within the housing [note databases such as 42, 56, and 58 in fig. 3, 10] and having:
a response address database having lists of response addresses matched with vehicle identification information [see [0094] indicating a problem description database 120 which links certain problems to certain identification data; see also the prior experience database described in [0018] and the lookup table indicated in [0062]]; and
a configuration database having configuration instructions matched with vehicle identification information, the configuration instructions being associated with a vehicle-specific tool functionality [see [0015] and note the protocol database containing diagnostic protocols specific to received vehicle identification data]; and
a processor located within the housing and in operative communication with the memory circuit [note the CPU 38 shown in fig. 3 and note being enclosed within the device 10 and connection to the databases], the processor being configured to:
generate an initialization command for transmission to a vehicle computer via a diagnostic port on the vehicle [note step 212 of fig. 5 indicating initiation signals sent to the onboard computer of a vehicle from a diagnostic device via a connector];
receive an initial response signal from the vehicle computer via the diagnostic port in response to the initialization command, the initial response signal being devoid of vehicle identification information [note the confirmation signal received in step 214 (with output YES) of fig. 5 and note that the confirmation signal is received in response to the initiation signals of step 212; further note that vehicle identification information is not exchanged until later steps 216 and 218 in the procedure];
determine vehicle identification information of the vehicle [see step 218 of fig. 5]; and
access the configuration database to configure the DAT to implement the vehicle-specific tool functionality based on the determined vehicle identification information of the vehicle [see [0015] and note accessing a protocol database containing diagnostic protocols specific to received vehicle identification data and the configuration of the tool based on the vehicle identification data; see also [0062]-[0063]].
Chen I does not explicitly teach that the initial response signal includes a list of response addresses associated with respective systems on the vehicle.
Neither does it explicitly teach comparing the list of response addresses included in the initial response signal to a response address database having lists of response addresses matched with vehicle identification information to determine vehicle identification information of the vehicle.
Belsoeur teaches a method of determining an identity of a vehicle [see e.g. title and fig. 1], the method comprising a response signal that includes a list of response addresses associated with respective systems on the vehicle [see [0061]-[0062] and steps 100 and 105 of fig. 1].
Belsoeur further teaches comparing the list of response addresses included in the response signal to a response address database having lists of response addresses matched with vehicle identification information to determine vehicle identification information of the vehicle [see [0063] and step 110 of fig. 1 indicating comparing the received data with a database 4 thus determining identification data 135 related to the vehicle].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Chen I and Belsoeur, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the instructions taught by Chen I for determining vehicle identification by explicitly specifying that the initial response signal includes a list of response addresses associated with respective systems on the vehicle, and comparing the list of response addresses included in the initial response signal to a response address database having lists of response addresses matched with vehicle identification information to determine vehicle identification information of the vehicle, as per the teachings of Belsoeur. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable the utilization of a listening approach for recognizing vehicle identification data before proceeding to communication in a manner that eliminates the risk of creating unexpected faults on the vehicle, as suggested by Belsoeur [see e.g. [0008] and [0016]].
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the rejection of each of independent claims 1 and 10 is respectively incorporated. Belsoeur further teaches vehicle identification information that is the make of the vehicle [note the type/model and platform/brand of the vehicle identified in [0063]]. Refer to the rejections of the independent claims for motivations to combine.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the rejection of each of independent claims 1 and 10 is respectively incorporated. Belsoeur further teaches vehicle identification information that is the manufacturer of the vehicle [note the type/model and platform/brand of the vehicle identified in [0063]]. Refer to the rejections of the independent claims for motivations to combine.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the rejection of each of independent claims 1 and 10 is respectively incorporated. Chen I further teaches that the vehicle-specific tool functionality includes implementing a vehicle-specific communication protocol to facilitate communication with the vehicle [note in [0014] accessing a diagnostic protocol for communicating with the onboard computer; note that the protocol may be specific or private to the particular vehicle associated with the onboard computer].
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of independent claim 10 is incorporated. Chen I further teaches accessing a configuration database having configuration instructions matched with vehicle identification information, the configuration instructions being associated with a vehicle-specific tool functionality [again, note in [0015]-[0017] the protocol database having configuration instructions; note reconfiguring the scan tool; note in [0017] the different control functions in diagnosis and repair; see also [0050] indicating specific system-level control aspects and corresponding protocols].
Claims 4-6, 14-16, and 21 are rejected under35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen I in view of Belsoeur, and further in view of Merg et al., US PGPUB 2021/0247729 A1 (hereinafter as Merg I).
Regarding claims 4, 14, and 21, the rejection of each of independent claims 1, 10, and 20 is respectively incorporated. The previously combined art does not explicitly teach identifying an electronic control unit (ECU) to send a request for a vehicle identification number (VIN) of the vehicle.
Merg I teaches identifying an electronic control unit (ECU) to send a request for a vehicle identification number (VIN) of the vehicle [see [0186] indicating a request sent to a certain ECU in the vehicle for a VIN; note the different ECUs of the vehicle shown in fig. 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Merg I, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined teachings to by explicitly specifying identifying an electronic control unit (ECU) to send a request for a vehicle identification number (VIN) of the vehicle, as per the teachings of Merg I. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable applying the vehicle identification method taught by Chen I to adapt to vehicular systems with multiple ECUs as in the system taught by Merg I [again, see e.g. [0186] and fig. 3].
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the rejection of each of claims 4 and 14 is respectively incorporated. Merg I further teaches sending a request to the identified ECU for the VIN of the vehicle [again, see [0186] indicating a request sent to a certain ECU in the vehicle for a VIN; note the different ECUs of the vehicle shown in fig. 3]. Refer to the rejections of claims 4 and 14 for motivations to combine.
Regarding claim 6 and 16, the rejection of each of claims 5 and 15 is respectively incorporated. Merg I further teaches that the identified ECU is an ECU not implementing the functionalities of a powertrain control module and the transmission control module [again, see [0186] indicating a request sent to a certain ECU in the vehicle for a VIN; note the different and distinct ECUs of the vehicle shown in fig. 3; note in [0038] the dedication of each ECU to a certain function and especially note the powertrain system ECU 448 and the possibilities of other ECUs needed within the vehicle, as indicated in the last sentence. It would have been obvious to have a distinct transmission control ECU for a vehicle and to have a distinct ECU for storing and sharing the VIN]. Refer to the rejections of claims 4 and 14 for motivations to combine.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen I in view of Belsoeur, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, respectively, and further in view of Merg et al., US PGPUB 2023/0252824 A1 (hereinafter as Merg II).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the rejection of each of independent claims 1 and 10 are respectively incorporated. The previously combined art does not explicitly teach that the vehicle-specific tool functionality includes generating a vehicle-specific test command for communication to the vehicle.
Merg teaches vehicle-specific tool functionality that includes generating a vehicle-specific test command for communication to the vehicle [see e.g. in [0006] the functional test command that corresponds to a particular vehicle identifier].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Merg, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the instructions taught by Chen I and modified by Belsoeur, by explicitly specifying that that the vehicle-specific tool functionality includes generating a vehicle-specific test command for communication to the vehicle, as per the teachings of Merg. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable performing diagnostic tests that are tailored to specific components of the vehicle of interest, as suggested by Merg [again, see e.g. [0006]].
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen I in view of Belsoeur, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, respectively, and further in view of Berkobin et al., US PGPUB 2010/0070107 Al (hereinafter as Berkobin).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the rejection of each of independent claims 1 and 10 is respectively incorporated.
Although Chen I teaches that the diagnostic tool is compatible with OBD-II standard [see [0033]; see also [0046]], it does not explicitly teach that the initialization command is OBD-II"01 00.". Neither does Belsoeur.
Berkobin teaches an initialization command that is OBD-II"01 00."[note in [0053] the 0X00 OBD-II request command of which 0100 is an exemplary diagnostic command; see also [0052] ].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Berkobin, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to explicitly specify an initialization command that is OBD-II"01 00.” As per the exemplary diagnostic commands taught by Berkobin. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable utilizing unique 16-bit identifiers for communication which would enable performing 16-bit cyclic redundancy checks thus allowing the use of signatures, which would facilitate reliably communicating according to a known standard with vehicle onboard equipment vehicle, as suggested by Berkobin [see e.g. [0052]-[0053]], which would promote reusability and scalability for vehicle diagnostic testing protocols.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments in regard to the claim objections previously presented are accepted. These objections are thus respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant's prior art arguments with respect to the amended independent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully notes that the primary reference, Chen I, clearly teaches an initial response signal in response to the initialization command and that this initial response signal is devoid of vehicle identification information [again, note the confirmation signal received in step 214 (with output YES) of fig. 5 and note that this confirmation signal is received in response to the initiation signals of step 212; further note that vehicle identification information is not exchanged until later steps 216 and 218 in the procedure and thus the initial response signal is devoid of vehicle identification information]. The only missing aspect in the teachings of Chen I is that the initial response signal includes a list of response addresses associated with respective system on the vehicle. The secondary reference, Belsoeur, teaches messages sent on the bus that include a list of response addresses associated with respective systems on the vehicle [see [0061]-[0062] and steps 100 and 105 of fig. 1].
Contrary to Applicant’s allegation that the rejection is attempting to modify Belsoeur’s approach, Examiner emphasizes that the rejection indicates the modification of the initial response of Chen I to include a list of response addresses associated with respective systems on the vehicle, as per the teachings of Belsoeur and to further utilize this list to determine vehicle identification information, as also taught by Belsoeur, as a modification to the determination responsive to a direct request, as the one taught in Chen I. Examiner reasserts that the motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable the utilization of a listening approach for recognizing vehicle identification data before proceeding to further communication in a manner that eliminates the risk of creating unexpected faults on the vehicle, as suggested by Belsoeur [see e.g. [0008] and [0016]]. Examiner notes that utilizing Belsoeur’s approach for determining vehicle identification information would enable an automated approach for identifying the vehicle which would replace the direct request of Chen I and would facilitate further communication in an automated manner.
In response to applicant's listing of several benefits of the amended claims, the fact that the inventor has recognized other advantages which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Therefore, Examiner respectfully asserts that the combination of teachings of Chen I and Belsoeur sufficiently teaches all the limitations recited in the independent claim, as amended. Accordingly, Examiner respectfully asserts the updated rejections of the independent claims as presented above, as well as those of the dependent claims. Applicant is referred to the full rejections above for further details.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner nots from the cited art:
Lambourne et el., US PGPUB 2018/0225891 A1, which teaches automated vehicle discovery after connecting to a diagnostic port [see title and abstract].
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 MARIA S AYAD whose telephone number is (571)272-2743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am - 4:30 pm. Alt, Friday, 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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/MARIA S AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172