DETAILED ACTION
This is in reference to communication received 13 March 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 § 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:
obtain an input indicating that a machine (e.g., a vehicle, a heavy-duty vehicle) is experiencing an issue, based upon the issue (e.g., OBD Error Code), one or more troubleshooting procedures to remedy the received issue are identified which are used to generate a graph that represents the troubleshooting procedures defining a test to perform or make a repair. Using the graph, one of the troubleshooting procedure is selected and presented to the vehicle-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 receiving an input which was obtained from a sensor installed in a vehicle that there is an issue with a machine, 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 features which, alone and in combination, amount to significantly more that purported 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.
Applicant's argument that pending claimed amended invention is eligible for patent because cited prior art does not teach because combination of cited references do not teach the claimed invention directed to multiple graphs representing multiple troubleshooting procedures applicable to the one or more issues are generated which indicates test(s) to perform or repairs to be performed and presented to the user or mechanic in the vehicle. After the recommended troubleshooting-procedure is performed, associated results are received based upon which a second score is calculated for determining the follow-up troubleshooting-procedure to perform. To calculate the second score, based on a ratio of a number of edges connected to the performed troubleshooting procedure and a total number of edges associated with the troubleshooting procedure, a boost amount associated with a remaining troubleshooting procedure in the graph is generated with the associated remaining troubleshooting-procedure(s) 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, a second troubleshooting procedure to perform is displayed to the driver of the vehicle, is acknowledged and accepted.
An updated search was performed, and Rejection under 35 USC 101 is not cited in this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Amazon AWS published article “What is Boosting in Machine Learning” teaches Boosting is a method to reduce predictive in data analysis,
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
April 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights