DETAILED ACTION
This is in reference to communication received 06 July 2026. Claims 1 – 20 are pending for examination. 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 8, 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for based on the input and the description of the one or more issues, generate multiple graphs applicable to the one or more issues associated with the machine, obtaining, from a sensor associated with a machine, an input indicating the machine experiencing an issue, and one or more issues with the machine, wherein the machine includes a heavy-duty vehicle; based on the input, generating multiple graphs applicable to the one or more issues associated with the machine; calculating a first plurality of scores associated with the multiple graphs based on the multiple historical success rates; based on the first plurality of scores, displaying, via a user interface a first troubleshooting procedure among the multiple troubleshooting procedures to perform, wherein the first troubleshooting procedure is represented by the node in the graph; receiving, via the user interface, a selection of a performed troubleshooting procedure and a result associated with the performed troubleshooting procedure; based on the performed troubleshooting procedure and the result associated with the performed troubleshooting procedure, calculating a second plurality of scores associated with the graph; calculating a score associated with the remaining troubleshooting procedure in the graph by determining a ratio between the first number of activated edges and the second number of edges increased by the boost amount; and displaying, via the user interface, an indication of the second plurality of scores, wherein the indication of the second plurality of scores suggests a second troubleshooting procedure to perform, , does not reasonably provide enablement for
detecting a machine is experiencing one or more issues based on at least one image or at least one video of at least one component of the machine; generating a description of the one or more issues based on a sound produced by the machine in the at least one video, or a visual representation of the machine in the at least one video or the at least one image; in response to detecting the one or more issues, obtain, from a sensor associated with the at least one component, an input indicating the one or more issues with the machine, wherein the machine includes a heavy-duty vehicle. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Applicant’s disclosure does not teach how the machine will perform the process of detecting said machine is experiencing one or more issues based on at least one image or at least one video of at least one component of the machine; generating a description of the one or more issues based on a sound produced by the machine in the at least one video, or a visual representation of the machine in the at least one video or the at least one image; in response to detecting the one or more issues, obtain, from a sensor associated with the at least one component, without activities being performed a human like a machine-operator or a mechinic. Applicant’s disclosure also does not teach how said machine will capture sound or a video, analyze the captured or video or sound to make the determination that said machine is experiencing one or more issues.
Dependent claims 2 – 7, 9 – 13 and 15 – 20 inherit the deficiencies of parent claims 1, 8 and 14 they claim dependency from and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 8, representative of claims 1 and 14, in part is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim appears to be directed toward a judicial exception namely an abstract idea. Claim 8 recites invention directed to:
detecting that a machine is experiencing an issues based on at least one image or at least one video of at least one component of the machine; generating a description of the one or more issues based on sound or the video representation of the machine. When an issue is detected, an input indicating the one or more issues is obtained based upon which at least one graph representing troubleshooting procedures applicable to one or more issues is generated and a score is calculated and assigned to each of the generated troubleshooting procedure. A troubleshooting procedure with highest score is displayed on a user-interface for the to the machine-operator (or a mechanic) which they can perform to repair the vehicle. After performing the troubleshooting-procedure, result is provided as a feedback. Based upon the troubleshooting-procedure results, a second score is calculated by generating a boost amount, and when it is determined that the performed trouble-shooting procedure satisfies the criterion indicated by the edge leading to the remaining troubleshooting procedure, an edge leading to the remaining troubleshooting procedures is activated. A score associated with the remaining troubleshooting procedure in the graph is calculated with the remaining troubleshooting procedure in the graph by determining a ratio between the first number of activated edges and the second number of edges increased by the boost amount; and indication of the second plurality of scores suggesting a second troubleshooting-procedure is displayed as a suggestion to perform.
These limitations describe after sales support activities. Subsequent to detecting that a machine is experiencing one or more issues based upon sound or an image, based upon which an input is obtained from a sensor associated with one or more components (e.g., using a scanner, obtaining error-code-data using OBD of the vehicle), based upon the received input, identifying and providing troubleshooting procedure(s) to a user of a machine to resolve the issue they are experiencing, and receiving their feedback indicating whether the issue was resolved or not, as claimed would be part of providing sales and marketing support for the products sold by an entity. Providing troubleshooting procedure to the user and collecting response from the user to determine whether the issue has been resolved, or provide a subsequent trouble-shooting procedure that the user/driver/mechanic can perform to resolve the issue would be a sales-support team or helpdesk or a human receiving data, providing representation of troubleshooting procedure to the user, and receiving response from the user after they have performed the suggested trouble shooting procedure.
Represented claims 1 and 14, which do recite statutory categories (machine, product of manufacture, for example), the same analysis as above applies to these claims since the method steps are the same. However, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. These claims add the generic computer components (additional elements) of a system comprising one or more hardware processors and a memory (claim 14), and a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions that when executed by a processor of a machine cause the machine to perform the method addressed above (claim 1).
The processor, memory, and non-transitory machine-readable medium are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the processor, memory, and non-transitory machine-readable medium amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
When taken as an ordered combination, nothing is added that is not already present when the elements are taken individually. When viewed as a whole, the marketing activities amount to instructions applied using generic computer components.
As for dependent claims 2 – 8, 9 – 13 and 15 – 20, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of simply disclosing additional limitations that further limit the abstract idea with details regarding descriptions of various data, adjusting of scores by increasing or decreasing the scores, categorizing consumers based on their demographic information, identifying technical procedures and sorting (e.g., ranking) the identified technical procedures based on their calculated score and identifying the technical process based upon their ranking. Thus, the dependent claims merely provide additional non-structural (and predominantly non-functional) details that fail to meaningfully limit the claims or the abstract idea(s).
Therefore, claims 1 – 20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument that pending claimed amended invention is eligible for patent under 35 USC 101 because the claims, as a whole, are not directed to the alleged abstract idea as they integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application and provide an improvement in a technical field is acknowledged and considered.
However, upon further consideration, it is deemed that the invention as currently claimed is not eligible for patent under 35 USC 101, and have been responded above in Rejection under 35 USC 101 section.
Applicant's argument that pending claimed amended invention is eligible for patent under 35 USC 101 because they recite combination of features which amount to significantly more than an abstract idea is acknowledged and considered.
However, upon further consideration, it is deemed that the invention as currently claimed is not eligible for patent under 35 USC 101, and have been responded above in Rejection under 35 USC 101 section.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Embitel.com published article “What are the Trends and Challenges of Telematics Remote Vehicle Diagnostics” teaches Boosting is a method to reduce predictive in data analysis.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Naresh Vig whose telephone number is (571)272-6810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 06:30a - 04:00p.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571.270.7537. 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.
/NARESH VIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
September 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights