DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/522,319 filed on 11/29/2023.
• Claims 1-7, 16, 18-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 12/10/2025.
• Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the claim rejections, U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation and U.S.C. 112 rejections.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
The certified copy has been filed in Application No. 18/522,319 filed on 11/29/2023.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (CN112565341A) in view of Palai (US20240062595A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 16:
Rao teaches:
A vehicle parallel diagnosis method, comprising the following steps: executing, by a diagnostic service coordinator: receiving a first diagnostic request message transmitted by at least one client; ( Rao, para[14], ”device for diagnosing ”, para [19], “”, and para [05], “In response to a data forwarding operation of the client, … forward the data to a corresponding server within a first preset time period”, and para [27], “the gateway can process concurrent tasks”,) Examiner note: Rao teaches a vehicle parallel diagnosis service device which can process concurrent tasks.
and forwarding, …, the first diagnostic request message to the diagnostic server via a target routing controller, ( Rao, para [38], “forwarding… vehicle diagnostic messages”, and para [05], “forward … to a corresponding server”, and para [58], “the diagnostic routing device 10 and the server are connected via a CAN bus”)
receiving a second diagnostic request message transmitted by at least one client; ( Rao, para [44], “receiving at least two frames of messages (such as 5 frames) sent by the client”)
if the current diagnostic state is the completed state, (Rao, para [43], “when the current gateway forwards the data to the corresponding server within a first preset time period, it is determined that the current gateway completes the routing.”)
and forwarding… the second diagnostic request message to the diagnostic server via the target routing controller, ( Rao, para [38], “forwarding… vehicle diagnostic messages”, and para [63], “the data forwarding module 11 can uniformly convert the at least two frames of messages into protocols and then send them to the corresponding server”)
if the current diagnostic state is the uncompleted state, (Rao, para [43], “the current data forwarding operation is still in progress”)
otherwise controlling… the at least one diagnostic request message after a target delay duration (Rao, para [46], “After determining that it has timed out, the gateway may resend the data to the corresponding server”)
until the diagnostic server is in the completed state, (Rao, para [43], “when the current gateway forwards the data to the corresponding server within a first preset time period, it is determined that the current gateway completes the routing.”)
and forwarding the second diagnostic request message to the diagnostic server via the target routing controller; ( Rao, para [38], “forwarding… vehicle diagnostic messages”, and para [05], “forward … to a corresponding server”, and para [58], “the diagnostic routing device 10 and the server are connected via a CAN bus”)
after the second diagnostic request message is received, ( Rao, para [38], “after receiving at least two frames of messages … sent by the client”)
Rao does not explicitly teach, but Palai teaches:
if the diagnostic service coordinator is idle, ( Palai, para[82], “At step 802, it is determined whether proximity diagnostic communication is already in progress with any non-OBD wired tester. If no, then at step 803”) Examiner note: Palai teaches determining whether diagnostic server has a diagnostic communication in progress, and the action is taken if there is no communication currently occurring (“If no” ). The “if no” condition demonstrates that no communication is currently active or happening, which corresponds directly to the diagnostic server coordinator be “idle”.
detecting a current diagnostic state of the diagnostic server with respect to the first diagnostic request message ( Palai, claim 3, “the first supervisory diagnostic server is configured, upon receipt of a new proximity diagnostic request, to: determine whether diagnostic communication is already in progress”)
and performing a first diagnostic on the at least one client via the diagnostic server in response to the first diagnostic request message, and performing a second diagnostic on the at least one client via the diagnostic server in response to the second diagnostic request message, thereby diagnosing a vehicle.( Palai, para [112], “the diagnostic server modules 212 perform one or more diagnostic tests”, claim 5, “upon receipt of a new remote or on-board diagnostic request”, and para [114], “ performing system-level diagnostic operations based on the received component-level diagnostic notifications”, claim 13, “vehicle diagnostic”) Examiner note: Palai teaches performing a plurality of diagnostic tests upon receiving diagnostic request from client via server.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the diagnostic routing method from Rao to include these above teachings from Palai in order to include if the diagnostic service coordinator is idle, detecting a current diagnostic state of the diagnostic server with respect to the first diagnostic request message after the second diagnostic request message is received, and performing a first diagnostic on the at least one client via the diagnostic server in response to the first diagnostic request message, and performing a second diagnostic on the at least one client via the diagnostic server in response to the second diagnostic request message, thereby diagnosing a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the vehicle diagnostic redundancy.
Claim(s) 2, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (CN112565341A) in view of Palai (US20240062595A1), further in view of Wang (US20220329519A1) and Zhou (US20220329354A1).
Regarding Claims 2 and 18:
Rao in view of Palai, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 16. Rao teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein after the target delay duration, ( Rao, para [23], “After sending the status message to the client, if the data is not forwarded to the corresponding server within a second preset time period, determining that the response has timed out;”)
and before controlling the at least one client to retransmit the second diagnostic request message, the diagnostic service coordinator further executes: ( Rao, para [46], “After determining that it has timed out, the gateway may resend the data to the corresponding server and restart the timer”)
Rao does not explicitly teach, but Wang teaches:
acquiring an accumulated number of retransmissions of the second diagnostic request message; (Wang, claim 7, “detecting, … whether a total quantity of to-be-retransmitted service packets reaches a second preset quantity ”, para [48], “vehicle-mounted device”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the diagnostic routing method from Rao to include these above teachings from Wang in order to include acquiring an accumulated number of retransmissions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the reliability of diagnosis.
Rao does not explicitly teach, but Zhou teaches:
and determining the target delay duration according to the accumulated number. (Zhou, para[192], “The second sending module 1540 is further configured to: acquire a total time delay … in response to the number of times”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the diagnostic routing method from Rao to include these above teachings from Zhou in order to include determining the target delay duration according to the accumulated number. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the reliability of diagnosis.
Claim(s) 3, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (CN112565341A) in view of Palai (US20240062595A1), further in view of Wang (US20220329519A1), Zhou (US20220329354A1) and DJURDJEVIC (US20160364437A1).
Regarding Claims 3 and 19:
Rao in view of Palai, Wang, Zhou, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 2 and 18. Rao does not explicitly teach, but Zhou teaches:
The method according to claim 2, wherein the determining the target delay duration according to the accumulated number comprises: determining whether the accumulated number reaches a predetermined number; (Zhou, claim 5, “determining whether the number of times reaches a second preset number”)
calculating the target delay duration according to the accumulated number when the accumulated number is less than or equal to the predetermined number, (Zhou, para[192], “acquire… time delay … in response to the number of times not reaching the second preset number”)
… when the accumulated number is equal to the predetermined number; (Zhou, claim 11, “ the second total number reaching the first total number”)
…when the accumulated number is greater than the predetermined number(Zhou, claim 5, “determining whether the number of times reaches a second preset number”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the diagnostic routing method from Rao to include these above teachings from Zhou in order to include determining whether the accumulated number reaches a predetermined number. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the reliability of diagnosis.
Rao does not explicitly teach, but DJURDJEVIC teaches:
and generating a delay queue based on the target delay duration corresponding to each delay …( DJURDJEVIC , para [86], “the received update is placed in a queue and the calculated delay duration … The queue… configured to store incoming data messages subject to delay”)
and randomly acquiring the target delay duration from the delay queue…( DJURDJEVIC , para [86],” The queue can be processed such that queued updates are released in order of ascending random duration ”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the diagnostic routing method from Rao to include these above teachings from DJURDJEVIC in order to include generating a delay queue based on the target delay duration corresponding to each delay and randomly acquiring the target delay duration from the delay queue. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the reliability of diagnosis.
Claim(s) 4, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (CN112565341A) in view of Palai (US20240062595A1), further in view of Wang (US20220329519A1), Zhou (US20220329354A1), DJURDJEVIC (US20160364437A1) and Grisell (US4077253A).
Regarding Claims 4 and 20:
Rao in view of Palai, Wang, Zhou, DJURDJEVIC, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 3 and 19. Rao does not explicitly teach, but Zhou teaches:
target delay duration (Zhou, para[192], “time delay”)
the accumulated number(Zhou, para[192], “the number of times”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the diagnostic routing method from Rao to include these above teachings from Zhou in order to include target delay duration and the accumulated number. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the reliability of diagnosis.
Rao does not explicitly teach, but DJURDJEVIC teaches:
an interval duration ( DJURDJEVIC , para [78], “ time interval ”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the diagnostic routing method from Rao to include these above teachings from DJURDJEVIC in order to include an interval duration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the reliability of diagnosis.
Rao does not explicitly teach, but Grisell teaches:
The method according to claim 3, wherein a calculation formula is: target duration = 2N*ΔT, (Grisell,Col.11, lines 26, “T = 2N ΔT”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the diagnostic routing method from Rao to include these above teachings from Grisell in order to include a calculation formula of 2N*ΔT. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the reliability of diagnosis.
Claim(s) 5, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (CN112565341A) in view of Palai (US20240062595A1), further in view of Geng (US20230318823A1).
Regarding Claims 5 and 21:
Rao in view of Palai, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 16. Rao does not explicitly teach, but Geng teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the detecting a current diagnostic state of a diagnostic server comprises: detecting an actual detection duration of the diagnostic server; determining that the current diagnostic state is the completed state when the actual detection duration is greater than a predetermined diagnostic duration; and determining, if a response message transmitted by the diagnostic server is received, that the current diagnostic state is the completed state, otherwise determining that the current diagnostic state is the uncompleted state, when the actual detection duration is less than or equal to the predetermined diagnostic duration. (Geng, para [10], “ if the key management system receives, within the preset period duration, the security heartbeat message sent by the diagnostic device, the key management system may continue to make the temporary key in the to-be-diagnosed unit effective. If the key management system does not receive, within the preset period duration, the security heartbeat message sent by the diagnostic device, the key management system may make the temporary key in the to-be-diagnosed unit ineffective”, and para [206], “a diagnostic server”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the diagnostic routing method from Rao to include these above teachings from Geng in order to include detecting an actual detection duration of the diagnostic server; determining that the current diagnostic state is the completed state when the actual detection duration is greater than a predetermined diagnostic duration; and determining, if a response message transmitted by the diagnostic server is received, that the current diagnostic state is the completed state, otherwise determining that the current diagnostic state is the uncompleted state, when the actual detection duration is less than or equal to the predetermined diagnostic duration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the reliability of diagnosis.
Claim(s) 6, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (CN112565341A) in view of Palai (US20240062595A1), further in view of Dadashikelayeh (US9537953B1).
Regarding Claims 6 and 22:
Rao in view of Palai, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 16. Rao teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the forwarding the second diagnostic request message to the diagnostic server further comprises: ( Rao, para [38], “forwarding… vehicle diagnostic messages”, and para [63], “the data forwarding module 11 can uniformly convert the at least two frames of messages into protocols and then send them to the corresponding server”)
and forwarding a second diagnostic request message …to the diagnostic server, ( Rao, para [38], “forwarding… vehicle diagnostic messages”, and para [63], “the data forwarding module 11 can uniformly convert the at least two frames of messages into protocols and then send them to the corresponding server”)
and updating the current diagnostic state into the uncompleted state. ( Rao, para [64], “and determines that the response has timed out if the data is not forwarded to the corresponding server within a second preset time period”)
Rao does not explicitly teach, but Dadashikelayeh teaches:
acquiring, in the presence of a plurality of second diagnostic request messages actually, an actual request moment of each second diagnostic request message; (Dadashikelayeh, claim 5, “The computing system of claim 1 further comprising a logging unit programmed to record a log associated with the request, wherein the log comprises at least one of a timestamp, an event associated with the request, … and diagnostic information.”)
…corresponding to the earliest actual request moment (Dadashikelayeh, claim 5, “The computing system of claim 1 further comprising a logging unit programmed to record a log associated with the request, wherein the log comprises at least one of a timestamp, an event associated with the request, … and diagnostic information.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the diagnostic routing method from Rao to include these above teachings from Dadashikelayeh in order to include wherein the forwarding the diagnostic request message to the diagnostic server further comprises: acquiring, in the presence of a plurality of diagnostic request messages actually, an actual request moment of each diagnostic request message. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the reliability of diagnosis.
Claim(s) 7, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (CN112565341A) in view of Palai (US20240062595A1), further in view of Dadashikelayeh (US9537953B1), Inagi (US20190362262A1) and Cai(CN 110223415A).
Regarding Claims 7 and 23:
Rao in view of Palai, Dadashikelayeh, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 6 and 22. Rao teaches:
The method according to claim 6, wherein the forwarding a second diagnostic request message corresponding to the earliest actual request moment to the diagnostic server comprises: ( Rao, para [38], “forwarding… vehicle diagnostic messages”, and para [63], “the data forwarding module 11 can uniformly convert the at least two frames of messages into protocols and then send them to the corresponding server”)
and forwarding a second diagnostic request message …to the diagnostic server, ( Rao, para [38], “forwarding… vehicle diagnostic messages”, and para [63], “the data forwarding module 11 can uniformly convert the at least two frames of messages into protocols and then send them to the corresponding server”)
Rao does not explicitly teach, but Dadashikelayeh teaches:
…corresponding to the earliest actual request moment (Dadashikelayeh, claim 5, “The computing system of claim 1 further comprising a logging unit programmed to record a log associated with the request, wherein the log comprises at least one of a timestamp, an event associated with the request, … and diagnostic information.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the diagnostic routing method from Rao to include these above teachings from Dadashikelayeh in order to include wherein the forwarding the diagnostic request message corresponding to the earliest actual request moment to the diagnostic server. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the reliability of diagnosis.
Rao does not explicitly teach, but Inagi teaches:
acquiring, …, an actual diagnostic type corresponding to each second diagnostic request message; (Inagi, para [122], “information of the types of errors diagnosis…are generated”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the diagnostic routing method from Rao to include these above teachings from Inagi in order to include acquiring an actual diagnostic type corresponding to each diagnostic request message. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the reliability of diagnosis.
Rao does not explicitly teach, but Cai teaches:
and matching a priority of each second diagnostic request message according to the actual diagnostic type, (Cai, para [34], “matching parameter type is 1, the priority of key1…If they match, the corresponding diagnosis file is found”)
…with the highest priority (Cai, para [138], “the diagnostic file with the highest priority is selected”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the diagnostic routing method from Rao to include these above teachings from Cai in order to include matching a priority of each diagnostic request message according to the actual diagnostic type. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the reliability of diagnosis.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s amendments filed on 12/10/2025 have overcome the claim rejections, U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation, 35 USC § 101 rejections and U.S.C. 112 rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103. Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/10/2025 with respect to claims 1-7, 16, 18-23 (See applicant’s response, page 13, “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103”) 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 Kai Wang whose telephone number is (571) 270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30 Eastern.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664