DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. This action is responsive to the following communication: a non-provisional Application filed on January 23, 2024, and thus the effective filing date is January 23, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The examiner acknowledges two Information Disclosure Statements submitted on January 26, 2024 and April 23, 2025, respectively. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
4. Claims 1-23 are pending in the case; Claims 1, 22, and 23 are independent claims. This action is made non-final.
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in the Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in the Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “configuring … a vehicle service tool to operate…,” in Claim 1 (and similarly, in Claims 22 and 23)1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (see Instant Specification, Figs. 1-4, ¶¶ 0043, 0440; see also Fig. 5, ¶¶ 0064-67; see discussion of § 112(b) rejection, below). For the purposes of examination, these components are being considered as computing components (implemented in hardware or in a combination of hardware and software) (see Specification, ¶¶ 0064-65; see also discussion of § 112(b), below).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-21 are directed to a method; Claim 22 is directed to a computing system; Claim 23 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable memory. Therefore, Claims 1-23 meet the requirements to be considered a statutory category (See MPEP § 2106.03).
Step 2A, prong one evaluation: The abstract ideas (specifically mental processes) in the rejected claims are as follows:
determining … from among a group of diagnostic descriptors corresponding to the first category of diagnostic descriptors, a first diagnostic descriptor corresponding to the first diagnostic identifier (Claim 1, and similarly in Claims 22 and 23)
determining … based on the list of diagnostic identifiers, a template for configuring the first graphical user interface to display the data values corresponding to the first diagnostic identifier and to other data values contained in the vehicle data messages (Claim 6)
determining … from among the second category of diagnostic descriptors, a second diagnostic descriptor that corresponds to the first diagnostic identifier in the vehicle data messages (Claim 10)
determining, at the processor from among the multiple diagnostic descriptors corresponding to the second diagnostic identifier, the second diagnostic descriptor corresponding to the second diagnostic identifier (Claim 11)
determining, at the processor from among the second category of diagnostic descriptors, a second diagnostic descriptor corresponding to the first diagnostic identifier in the vehicle data messages (Claim 15)
determining, at the processor from among a group of component test descriptors corresponding to the first category of component test descriptors, a particular component test descriptor corresponding to the particular component test (Claim 17)
determining, at the processor from among the first category of diagnostic descriptors, the component test descriptor corresponding to the particular component test (Claim 18)
The recited determining steps are mental processes that can easily be completed in the human mind. Nothing in the claims, other than a recitation of “via a processor,” precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claims encompass a person matching a set of descriptors to different identifiers. Therefore, the above-noted claims recite abstract ideas.
The additional elements in Claims 1-23 are grouped as follows:
configuring, via a processor, a vehicle service tool to operate in a first state / second state … (Claim 1, and similarly Claims 22 and 23; also Claims 10, 13, 14, 17, 18); responsively configuring the vehicle service tool … (Claims 1, 22, 23); wherein transmitting … and receiving … occur via execution of an application programming interface to the server (Claim 4).
receiving, at the processor … a selection of the first user-selectable control (Claims 1, 22, 23; also Claim 10); receiving … vehicle data messages (Claims 1, 22, 23; also Claim 11); receiving … a selection indicative of a list of diagnostic identifiers selected for displaying … (Claim 3); receiving … the group of diagnostic descriptors (Claims 3, 11); receiving … one or more or… (Claim 5); receiving a selection of the second user-selectable control (Claims 9, 15, 17, 19).
wherein in the second state the vehicle service tool displays a first graphical user interface (Claims 1, 22, 23); outputting, within the first graphical user interface, the first diagnostic descriptor and a representation of at least a first portion of the data values corresponding to the first diagnostic identifier (Claims 1,22,23); the processor outputting a second graphical user interface (Claims 7-8); modifying… the first graphical user interface (Claims 9, 19-21); outputting, on the first graphical user interface, … (Claim 10); outputting, within the first graphical user interface, a set of multiple operable user-selectable controls … (Claim 15); outputting, on the first graphical user interface, the second diagnostic descriptor and a representation of at least the first portion of the data values (Claim 15); outputting, via the second graphical user interface, the particular component test descriptor and measurement … (Claims 17, 18).
transmits requests for vehicle data messages to a vehicle (Claims 1, 22, 23).
Step 2A, prong two evaluation: The additional elements, individually and in combination, fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additional element group (a) merely links the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)); additional element groups (b), (c), and (d) are insignificant extra-solution activities – specifically, additional element group (b) is a pre-solution activity and additional element groups (c) and (d) are post-solution activity of displaying or transmitting (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); additional element group (a)-(d) merely apply the abstract idea to one or more generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: The additional elements, individually and in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Office takes Official Notice that they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)), or else they are insignificant extra solution activities in the form of data collection, analysis, and display (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), listing numerous court decisions pertaining to observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions, such as the findings from Electric Power Group (holding that collecting information, analyzing it, and outputting certain results of the collection and analysis was not significantly more than the judicial exception)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
6. Claims 1-12 and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to independent Claim 1 (and similarly, independent Claims 22 and 23), Claim 1 recites “configuring, via a processor, a vehicle service tool to operate…,” and this limitation appears to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose a particular structure that is required to perform these functions. It is noted that the instant Specification illustrates the vehicle service tool (element 3) as a black box communicating with the vehicle or other components (see Figs. 1-4), but there does not appear to be any explicit disclosure or requirement that the vehicle service tool has to be implemented, at least in part, in hardware (see ¶ 0440), thus a skilled artisan would not be able to readily understand which structure (or structures) are required to perform the claimed function. It is noted that instant Specification states that “the VST 3 shown in Fig. 1 to Fig. 4 can be arranged like the VST 60 and/or include one or more aspects of the VST 60” (which includes a processor 62, a memory 63, etc., as illustrated in Fig. 5), but it is not clear in the claim that the “vehicle service tool” corresponds to “VST 60” rather than “VST 3.” Therefore, Claim 1 (and similarly, Claims 22 and 23) is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Dependent Claims 2-12 and 14-21 fail to cure the deficiencies of Claim 1, and are thus also rejected under § 112(b) under the same rationale2.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
7. Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merg et al. (hereinafter Merg), US 2020/0184745 A1, published on June 11, 2020, in view of Lewis et al. (hereinafter Lewis), US 2018/0047223 A1, published on February 15, 2018.
With respect to independent Claim 1, Merg teaches a method comprising:
configuring, via a processor, a vehicle service tool to operate in a first state in which a first user-selectable control of the vehicle service tool is operable for selecting a first category of diagnostic descriptors to use when the vehicle service tool operates in a second state (see Figs. 1, 3, 4, ¶¶ 0066-67, 0086, showing textual vehicle service information that is displayed to in response to a search query based on a vehicle identifier and/or diagnostic descriptor (DTC), such information including a selectable link to initialize a related scan tool function; see also ¶¶ 0148, 0152, showing that a scan tool can be configured to perform the relevant functionality).
receiving, at the processor while the vehicle service tool operates in the first state, a selection of the first user-selectable control and responsively configuring the vehicle service tool to use the first category of diagnostic descriptors when operating in the second state (see ¶¶ 0066-67, 0086, 0148, 0152, and discussion of the previous limitation, showing selection of a link in order to automatically configure the tool to perform the relevant functionality).
configuring, via the processor, the vehicle service tool to operate in the second state, wherein in the second state the vehicle service tool displays a first graphical user interface and transmits requests for vehicle data messages to a vehicle (see ¶¶ 0155-57, 0192, showing that graphical user interface at the tool that can be displayed when a particular function is initialized, and a skilled artisan would understand that various functions rely on transmission of vehicle data messages in order to properly perform scanning or service functions).
It is noted that Merg does not appear to explicitly teach
receiving, at the processor while the vehicle service tool operates in the second state, vehicle data messages including a first diagnostic identifier and data values corresponding to the first diagnostic identifier;
determining, at the processor from among a group of diagnostic descriptors corresponding to the first category of diagnostic descriptors, a first diagnostic descriptor corresponding to the first diagnostic identifier; and
outputting, within the first graphical user interface, the first diagnostic descriptor and a representation of at least a first portion of the data values corresponding to the first diagnostic identifier,
but a skilled artisan would understand that once a function is initialized in Merg (see Fig. 26), relevant data can be communicated and displayed to the user in various manners, as discloses by Lewis. Lewis is directed towards displaying a diagnostic filter list for a corresponding vehicle, symptom, and component information (see Lewis, ¶¶ 0002-03, 0050). Lewis discloses displaying information for particular tests and filtering such information based on the desired identifiers (see Lewis, Figs. 24-29, ¶¶ 0179-89). It follows that Lewis discloses the receiving, determining, and outputting steps as recited herein (see Figs. 26-29). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the display of information corresponding to a particular service tool function of Merg to include the information displayed in Lewis in order to allow the user/technician to review the outcome of (and details corresponding to) the automatically initialized function in an efficient manner.
With respect to independent Claims 22 and 23, these claims are directed to a computing system and a non-transitory computer-readable memory, respectively, comprising steps and/or features similar to those recited in Claim 1, and are thus rejected under a similar rationale as Claim 1, above.
With respect to dependent Claim 2, Merg in view of Lewis discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and Merg in view of Lewis further discloses wherein the group of diagnostic descriptors includes multiple diagnostic descriptors corresponding to the first diagnostic identifier, wherein the multiple diagnostic descriptors include the first diagnostic descriptor corresponding to the first diagnostic identifier, and wherein the multiple diagnostic descriptors correspond to different categories of diagnostic descriptors (see Merg, ¶¶ 0065-67, 0082, 0199; see also Lewis, ¶¶ 0097-100, 0239).
With respect to dependent Claim 3, Merg in view of Lewis discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and Merg in view of Lewis further discloses receiving, at the processor, a selection indicative of a list of diagnostic identifiers selected for displaying within the first graphical user interface; transmitting, from the processor to a server, a list identifier corresponding to the list of diagnostic identifiers; and receiving, at the processor in response to transmitting the list identifier, the group of diagnostic descriptors, wherein the group of diagnostic descriptors includes multiple diagnostic descriptors that correspond to a different diagnostic identifier in the list of diagnostic identifiers, and wherein the multiple diagnostic descriptors include the first diagnostic descriptor (see Merg, ¶¶ 0065-67, 0082, 0199; see also Lewis, ¶¶ 0097-100, 0239).
With respect to dependent Claim 4, Merg in view of Lewis discloses the method of claim 3, as discussed above, and Merg in view of Lewis further discloses wherein transmitting the list identifier and receiving the group of diagnostic descriptors occur via execution of an application programming interface to the server (see Merg, ¶¶ 0050-51, 0059, 0205).
With respect to dependent Claim 5, Merg in view of Lewis discloses the method of claim 3, as discussed above, and Merg in view of Lewis further discloses receiving, at the processor from the server, one or more of the following: the list of diagnostic identifiers, a maximum data value threshold corresponding to the first diagnostic identifier, a minimum data value threshold corresponding to the first diagnostic identifier, a detailed description of the first diagnostic identifier, or a facet characteristic (see Merg, ¶¶ 0066-67, 0085-86).
With respect to dependent Claim 6, Merg in view of Lewis discloses the method of claim 3, as discussed above, and Merg in view of Lewis further discloses determining, at the processor based on the list of diagnostic identifiers, a template for configuring the first graphical user interface to display the data values corresponding to the first diagnostic identifier and to other data values contained in the vehicle data messages (see Merg, ¶¶ 0066-67, 0085-86).
With respect to dependent Claim 7, Merg in view of Lewis discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and Merg in view of Lewis further discloses wherein configuring the vehicle service tool to operate in the first state includes the processor outputting a second graphical user interface, and wherein the second graphical user interface includes the first user-selectable control (see Merg, Fig. 4; see also Lewis, Fig. 25).
With respect to dependent Claim 8, Merg in view of Lewis discloses the method of claim 7, as discussed above, and Merg in view of Lewis further discloses wherein the second graphical user interface includes a second user-selectable control corresponding to a second category of diagnostic descriptors different than the first category of diagnostic descriptors, and wherein the first category of diagnostic descriptors and the second category of diagnostic descriptors both include a different one of: an original equipment manufacturer category of diagnostic descriptors, an industry standard defined category of diagnostic descriptors, a normalized category of diagnostic descriptors, or a user-defined category of diagnostic descriptors (see Merg, Fig. 4; see also Lewis, Fig. 25).
With respect to dependent Claim 9, Merg in view of Lewis discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and Merg in view of Lewis further discloses wherein the first graphical user interface includes a second user-selectable control corresponding to a second category of diagnostic descriptors, and wherein the method further comprises: receiving a selection of the second user-selectable control; and modifying, by the processor, the first graphical user interface to display a second diagnostic descriptor that corresponds to the first diagnostic identifier and a representation of at least the first portion of the data values corresponding to the first diagnostic identifier or a second portion of the data values corresponding to the first diagnostic identifier (see Merg, Fig. 4; see also Lewis, Fig. 25; see also discussion of Claim 1, above).
With respect to dependent Claim 10, Merg in view of Lewis discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and Merg in view of Lewis further discloses configuring, via the processor, the vehicle service tool to operate in the first state again; receiving, at the processor while the vehicle service tool operates in the first state, a selection of a second user-selectable control corresponding to a second category of diagnostic descriptors; configuring, via the processor, the vehicle service tool to operate in the second state again; determining, at the processor from among the second category of diagnostic descriptors, a second diagnostic descriptor that corresponds to the first diagnostic identifier in the vehicle data messages; and outputting, on the first graphical user interface, the second diagnostic descriptor and a representation of at least the first portion of the data values or at least a second portion of the data values (see Merg, Fig. 4; see also Lewis, Fig. 25; see also discussion of Claim 1, above).
With respect to dependent Claim 11, Merg in view of Lewis discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and Merg in view of Lewis further discloses receiving, at the processor, multiple diagnostic descriptors corresponding to a second diagnostic identifier, wherein the multiple diagnostic descriptors corresponding to the second diagnostic identifier include a second diagnostic descriptor corresponding to the second diagnostic identifier; receiving, at the processor, vehicle data messages including the second diagnostic identifier and data values corresponding to the second diagnostic identifier; and determining, at the processor from among the multiple diagnostic descriptors corresponding to the second diagnostic identifier, the second diagnostic descriptor corresponding to the second diagnostic identifier, wherein the first graphical user interface further includes the second diagnostic descriptor corresponding to the second diagnostic identifier and a representation of at least a portion of the data values corresponding to the second diagnostic identifier (see Merg, ¶¶ 0083-86, 0125-29).
With respect to dependent Claim 12, Merg in view of Lewis discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and Merg in view of Lewis further discloses wherein the first category of diagnostic descriptors is an original equipment manufacturer defined category of diagnostic descriptors, an industry standard defined category of diagnostic descriptors, a normalized category of diagnostic descriptors, or a user-defined category of diagnostic descriptors (see Merg, ¶¶ 0038, 0066-67).
With respect to dependent Claim 13, Merg in view of Lewis discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and Merg in view of Lewis further discloses wherein the processor includes a first processor at the vehicle service tool, and wherein configuring the vehicle service tool to operate in the first state is based on a first communication the first processor receives from a server, and wherein configuring the vehicle service tool to operate in the second state is based on a second communication the first processor receives from the server (see Merg, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0066-67).
With respect to dependent Claim 14, Merg in view of Lewis discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and Merg in view of Lewis further discloses wherein configuring the vehicle service tool to use the first category of diagnostic descriptors when operating in the second state includes modifying, via the processor, a data setting the processor uses to determine which category of diagnostic descriptors to use while the vehicle service tool operates in the second state (see Merg, ¶¶ 0066-67, 0086, 0127).
With respect to dependent Claim 15, Merg in view of Lewis discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and Merg in view of Lewis further discloses outputting, within the first graphical user interface, a set of multiple operable user-selectable controls, each user-selectable control of the set of multiple operable user-selectable controls corresponds to a different category of diagnostic descriptors; receiving, at the processor, a selection of a second user-selectable control corresponding to a second category of diagnostic descriptors to use when the vehicle service tool operates in the second state; determining, at the processor from among the second category of diagnostic descriptors, a second diagnostic descriptor corresponding to the first diagnostic identifier in the vehicle data messages; and outputting, on the first graphical user interface, the second diagnostic descriptor and a representation of at least the first portion of the data values or a second portion of the data values (see discussion of Claim 1, above; see also Lewis, Figs. 24-32).
With respect to dependent Claim 16, Merg in view of Lewis discloses the method of claim 15, as discussed above, and Merg in view of Lewis further discloses wherein the diagnostic descriptors of the first category of diagnostic descriptors include descriptors of parameter identifiers, functional test identifiers, or reset procedure identifiers (see discussion of Claim 1, above; see also Lewis, Figs. 24-32).
With respect to dependent Claim 17, Merg in view of Lewis discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and Merg in view of Lewis further discloses configuring, via the processor, the vehicle service tool to operate in a third state in which a second user-selectable control of the vehicle service tool is operable for selecting a first category of component test descriptors to use when the vehicle service tool operates in a fourth state; receiving, at the processor while the vehicle service tool operates in the third state, a selection of the second user-selectable control and responsively setting the vehicle service tool to use the first category of component test descriptors when operating in the fourth state; configuring, via the processor, the vehicle service tool to operate in the fourth state, wherein in the fourth state the vehicle service tool displays a second graphical user interface and outputs within the second graphical user interface a measurement made using an oscilloscope or a meter during performance of a particular component test; determining, at the processor from among a group of component test descriptors corresponding to the first category of component test descriptors, a particular component test descriptor corresponding to the particular component test; and outputting, within the second graphical user interface, the particular component test descriptor and the measurement made using the oscilloscope or the meter during performance of the particular component test (see Merg, ¶¶ 0083-86, 0119-20, 0192; see Lewis, Figs. 24-32).
With respect to dependent Claim 18, Merg in view of Lewis discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and Merg in view of Lewis further discloses wherein the first category of diagnostic descriptors includes a component test descriptor to use when the vehicle service tool operates in a third state, and wherein the method further comprises: configuring, via the processor, the vehicle service tool to operate in the third state, wherein in the third state the vehicle service tool displays a second graphical user interface and outputs within the second graphical user interface a measurement made using an oscilloscope or a meter during performance of a particular component test; determining, at the processor from among the first category of diagnostic descriptors, the component test descriptor corresponding to the particular component test; and outputting, within the second graphical user interface, the component test descriptor and the measurement made using the oscilloscope or the meter during performance of the particular component test (see Merg, ¶¶ 0083-86, 0119-20, 0192; see Lewis, Figs. 24-32).
With respect to dependent Claim 19, Merg in view of Lewis discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and Merg in view of Lewis further discloses wherein the first graphical user interface includes a second user-selectable control, wherein the second user-selectable control corresponds to a parameter-identifier, functional test, component test or reset procedure represented by the first diagnostic descriptor, and wherein the method further comprises receiving, at the processor, a selection of the second user-selectable control and responsively modifying the first graphical user interface to display supplemental information corresponding to the parameter-identifier, functional test, component test or reset procedure represented by the first diagnostic descriptor (see Lewis, Figs. 24-32).
With respect to dependent Claim 20, Merg in view of Lewis discloses the method of claim 19, as discussed above, and Merg in view of Lewis further discloses wherein the first graphical user interface includes a first container, wherein the first container includes the first diagnostic descriptor, and wherein modifying the first graphical user interface includes outputting a second container including the supplemental information (see Lewis, Figs. 24-32).
With respect to dependent Claim 21, Merg in view of Lewis discloses the method of claim 20, as discussed above, and Merg in view of Lewis further discloses wherein the second container is arranged as a pop-up container that overlays at least a portion of the first container (see Lewis, Figs. 24-32).
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
1 ”It is noted that Claim 1 recites “configuring, via a processor, a vehicle service tool to operate…” (and Claim 22 recites “a computing system comprising: a processor and … configuring, via the processor, a vehicle service tool to operate…,” while Claim 23 recites “a non-transitory computer-readable memory having stored thereon instructions executable by a processor to cause a computing system to perform functions comprising: configuring, via the processor, a vehicle service tool to operate…”) but it is not clear that the recited processor is a part (or structure) of the vehicle service tool; instead, the independent claims suggest that the processor sends instructions to the vehicle service tool but there is no mention of a structure of the recited tool (instead, it simply appears to describe a function) (i.e., a vehicle service tool configured to operate…).
2 Note that dependent Claim 13, reciting “wherein the processor includes a first processor at the vehicle service tool” is not rejected under § 112(b).