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 . Claims 1, 3-4, and 7-18 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 14-16 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being dependent upon canceled claim 2. A dependent claim must refer to a preceding claim that exists in the application. Claims 9, and 14-16 have been treated as being dependent from claim 1 since canceled claim 2 was rolled into claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-4, and 7-18 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claim 1 is directed to a device (i.e., a machine), claim 17 is directed to a method (i.e., process), and claim 18 is directed to a device (i.e., machine). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claim 1 is:
store a registered site registered based on information acquired from the vehicle or a user of the vehicle;
receive an input of data indicating an abnormal level associated with a predetermined abnormality of the vehicle;
acquire repair site data of a repair site where a part of the vehicle in which the predetermined abnormality is detected is to be repaired or to be replaced, wherein an inventory status of a replacement part for the target part or a reservation status of the repair site is acquired;
the repair site data is acquired according to the abnormal level and the inventory status or the reservation status;
acquire a current location of the vehicle;
determine, based on the abnormal level, whether to acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the registered site or to acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the current location;
when the abnormal level is less than a predetermined value, acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the registered site;
when the abnormal level is equal to or more than a predetermined value, acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the current location;
transmit the acquired repair site data;
based on the acquired repair site data, determine a repair route to the repair site for the vehicle according to the abnormal level,
wherein the repair route starts at either the registered site or the current location.
The abstract idea of claim 17 is:
storing a registered site registered based on information acquired from an automatically controllable vehicle or a user of the vehicle;
acquiring an inventory status of a replacement part for a target part or a reservation status of a repair site where the target part of the vehicle in which a predetermined abnormality is detected is to be repaired or to be replaced;
receiving an input of data indicating an abnormal level associated with a predetermined abnormality of the vehicle;
acquiring the repair site data of the repair site according to the abnormal level and the inventory status or the reservation status;
acquiring a current location of the vehicle;
determining, based on the abnormal level, whether to acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the registered site or to acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the current location;
when the abnormal level is less than a predetermined value, acquiring the repair site data of the repair site starting from the registered site;
when the abnormal level is equal to or more than a predetermined value, acquiring the repair site data of the repair site starting from the current location;
transmitting the acquired repair site data;
based on the acquired repair site data, determine a repair route for the vehicle to the repair site according to the abnormal level,
wherein the repair route starts at either the registered site or the current location.
The abstract idea of claim 18 is:
store a registered site registered based on information acquired from an automatically controllable vehicle or a user of the vehicle;
receive an input of data indicating an abnormal level associated with a predetermined abnormality of the vehicle;
acquire repair site data of a repair site where a part of the vehicle in which the predetermined abnormality is detected is to be repaired or to be replaced;
transmit the acquired repair site data;
acquire a current location of the vehicle;
determine, based on the abnormal level, whether to acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the registered site or to acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the current location;
when the abnormal level is less than a predetermined value, acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the registered site;
when the abnormal level is equal to or more than a predetermined value, acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the current location;
based on the acquired repair site data, determine a repair route for the vehicle to the repair site according to the abnormal level,
wherein the repair route starts at either the registered site or the current location.
The abstract idea steps italicized above recite matching equipment with repair sites based on issue severity and inventory/reservation data, which could be performed mentally, including with pen and paper. This is further supported by paragraph [0007] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind, including observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, then it falls within the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the claim is directed to coordination between users and repair sites, and actions based on user input, which constitutes a process that, under its BRI, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people. This is further supported by paragraph [0007] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and/or following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP §2106.04.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, described in MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or are insignificant extra-solution activity, described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 1, 17, and 18 recite the following additional elements: to an external device; cause the vehicle to automatically travel the repair route to the repair site.
The element “to an external device” represents merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP §2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in paragraphs [0010] – [0015] of applicant’s specification as filed, for example.
Additionally and alternatively, the element “cause the vehicle to automatically travel the repair route to the repair site” is an example of an insignificant extra- solution activity, described in MPEP 2106.05(g), given that it simply relates to 1) making a routing decision; and 2) insignificant application. The combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system. Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer and/or are no more than an idea of a solution or outcome, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or are insignificant extra-solution activity, as described in MPEP 2106.05(g), they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP §2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitates the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP §2106.05(f).
The considerations under MPEP 2106.05(g) are reevaluated; however, they're still not significantly more. Para. [0041] of applicant's specification as filed indicate the activity is well- understood, routine, and conventional, given that applicant has not described the features in any detail. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Para. [0041] are reproduced here:
[0041] Next, the vehicle2 will be described. The vehicle2 is an automobile with a navigation device installed, and is also a manned automobile for which travel control is performed automatically or manually. Further, in a case where the vehicle 2 is a vehicle managed by a business operator that is a user, such as a car-share vehicle, it may be an unmanned vehicle that can be controlled to travel automatically. Thevehicle2 includes the navigation device, which based on the current location of the vehicle 2 and a user's input, sets a travel route from a departure site to a destination, and presents route guidance to the user. For example, the navigation device displays a map, the current location of the vehicle2, the location of the destination, and the travel route on a display provided in the navigation device.
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Further, the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Regarding claims 3-4, 7-9, and 15-16, applicant further narrows the abstract idea with additional step(s). There are no further additional elements to consider, beyond those highlighted above. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, similar to above, is also not patent eligible.
Claim 10 includes further additional elements with additional tasks that narrow the abstract idea: transmit a control instruction to display the target part to the external device. Similar to above, these additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). When viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 11 includes further additional elements with additional tasks that narrow the abstract idea: from a device or database outside of the vehicle. Similar to above, these additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). When viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 12 includes further additional elements with additional tasks that narrow the abstract idea: transmit a control instruction to display the registered site to the external device. Similar to above, these additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). When viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 13 includes further additional elements with additional tasks that narrow the abstract idea: transmit a display instruction to display the repair site to the external device. Similar to above, these additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). When viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 14 includes further additional elements with additional tasks that narrow the abstract idea: transmit a stop instruction to stop at the emergency stop site to the external device. Similar to above, these additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). When viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3-4, and 7-18 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Arantes (US 20200075027) in view of Bachant (US 20200364950).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Arantes discloses:
A repair site transmission device for an automatically controllable vehicle configured to: {The system includes service computing device(s) that function as a repair site transmission device, being configured to acquire, process, and transmit repair site data (paragraphs 0022, 0077-0079).}
store a registered site registered based on information acquired from the vehicle or a user of the vehicle; {The system stores registered repair sites in a repair site fleet management data structure and selects a repair site based on information acquired from the vehicle or the user (paragraphs 0049, 0071, 0105).}
receive an input of data indicating an abnormal level associated with a predetermined abnormality of the vehicle; {The system receives sensor data from the equipment (e.g., vehicle) indicating abnormalities such as a fault condition. The sensor data is interpreted to detect events (e.g., loud engine noise, pump failure) which correspond to predetermined abnormalities (paragraphs 0037-0038, 0041, 0047).}
acquire repair site data of a repair site where a part of the vehicle in which the predetermined abnormality is detected is to be repaired or to be replaced {The system detects a vehicle abnormality (e.g., from sensor data) and, in response, acquires repair site data where the faulty part is to be repaired (paragraphs 0049, 0063, 0105).}
wherein an inventory status of a replacement part for the target part or a reservation status of the repair site is acquired; and {The system acquires inventory status of parts, repair site reservation status, and repair site data to determine optimal repair timing and location (paragraphs 0063, 0105, 0107).}
transmit the acquired repair site data to an external device {The system acquires repair site data (e.g., site name, GPS coordinates) and transmits it to external devices such as a technician device or operator device (paragraphs 0049, 0105).}
Arantes does not disclose:
the repair site data is acquired according to the abnormal level and the inventory status or the reservation status;
acquire a current location of the vehicle;
determine, based on the abnormal level, whether to acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the registered site or to acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the current location;
when the abnormal level is less than a predetermined value, acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the registered site;
when the abnormal level is equal to or more than a predetermined value, acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the current location;
based on the acquired repair site data, determine a repair route to the repair site for the vehicle according to the abnormal level;
wherein the repair route starts at either the registered site or the current location; and
cause the vehicle to automatically travel the repair route to the repair site.
However, Bachant, in a similar field of endeavor directed to manage and maintain equipment teaches:
the repair site data is acquired according to the abnormal level and the inventory status or the reservation status {The system determines the criticality level of an issue and, depending on the severity, selects and appropriate maintenance facility considering capacity, availability, and part specialization (i.e., inventory/reservation status) (paragraphs 0037, 0040-0042, 0049).}
acquire a current location of the vehicle {The autonomous vehicle determines and/or uses its location based on diagnostic data captured by sensors and further uses the vehicle’s current position in maintenance facility selection and routing (paragraphs 0014, 0031, 0042).}
determine, based on the abnormal level, whether to acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the registered site or to acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the current location {A criticality level is determined based on diagnostic data and, depending on that level, vehicles are routed immediately (high criticality) or after completing operations (medium/low) (paragraphs 0048-0049, 0051-0052).}
when the abnormal level is less than a predetermined value, acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the registered site {Low criticality issues result in scheduling maintenance for a future time, i.e., acquires repair site data in a non-urgent, scheduled context rather than from the vehicle’s immediate location (paragraphs 0052, 0056).}
when the abnormal level is equal to or more than a predetermined value, acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the current location {When the issue meets or exceeds a threshold, the system dispatches the vehicle to a maintenance facility (i.e., acquires repair site data based on the vehicle’s current position) (paragraphs 0042, 0049, 0051).}
based on the acquired repair site data, determine a repair route to the repair site for the vehicle according to the abnormal level {The routing system dynamically routes the autonomous vehicle to a maintenance facility based on the determined criticality level and maintenance parameters (paragraphs 0033, 0039, 0043).}
wherein the repair route starts at either the registered site or the current location {The autonomous vehicle is routed to a maintenance facility based on its operational state and severity level. The vehicle can be dispatched from its present position to the nearest available maintenance facility (paragraphs 0042, 0051-0052).}
cause the vehicle to automatically travel the repair route to the repair site {Upon determining the need for maintenance, the autonomous vehicle is instructed to autonomously drive to the selected maintenance facility (paragraphs 0039, 0051-0052).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the equipment maintenance management features of Arantes to include the auto-monitoring and maintenance features of Bachant, to improve time efficiency and reducing errors in the process. (see paragraph [0004] of Bachant).
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Arantes and Bachant teaches the limitations set forth above. Arantes further discloses:
wherein the registered site is a site input by the user, a destination, departure site, or waypoint of the vehicle, a site based on a past travel history of the vehicle, or a business site where the vehicle is managed. {A repair site may be determined based on history or usage metadata (paragraphs 0049, 0071).}
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Arantes and Bachant teaches the limitations set forth above. Arantes further discloses:
wherein the abnormal level is a severity of the abnormality according to an abnormal type of the abnormality. {The system determines a severity level (i.e., abnormal level) for each detected abnormality based on the type of the abnormality (e.g., engine noise vs. water pump leak). Each event is classified by abnormal type, and associated with a confidence level and action severity (e.g., repair immediately vs. quick fix) (i.e., hierarchical relationship) (paragraphs 0045, 0101, 0102).}
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Arantes and Bachant teaches the limitations set forth above. Arantes further discloses:
wherein the abnormal level is set based on a travel condition which is a distance by, time for, or range in which the vehicle is allowed to travel with the abnormality not repaired. {The severity level (i.e., abnormal level) may determine how long or how far the vehicle may continue operating before repair is required (paragraph 0045).}
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Arantes and Bachant teaches the limitations set forth above. Bachant further teaches:
determine, based on the abnormal level, a priority for the repair site in ascending order of distance from the registered site or the current location; and {The system evaluates the criticality level of an issue and, based on that level, dispatches the vehicle to a maintenance facility. Vehicles can be queued for maintenance based on their priority level (i.e., criticality level). Additionally, the system considers location-based parameters (e.g., distance, capacity) (paragraphs 0040-0043)
transmit the repair site data including the priority to the external device. {The system determines repair site data and priority based on criticality and transmit this data to external systems via communication service. Work orders with pre-populated instructions, based on selected work sites, are sent to remote systems (paragraphs 0033, 0043, 0050).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Arantes and Bachant to include the auto-monitoring and maintenance features of Bachant, to improve time efficiency and reducing errors in the process. (see paragraph [0004] of Bachant).
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Arantes and Bachant teaches the limitations set forth above. Arantes further discloses:
determine the abnormal level; {The system determines a severity level (i.e., abnormal level) for each detected equipment issue (paragraph 0045).}
configured to estimate a target part subject to the abnormality; and {The system analyzes abnormal events and estimates the specific part that is likely responsible for the abnormality based on diagnostic confidence and data (paragraphs 101-0102).}
transmit a control instruction to display the target part to the external device. {The system is configured to output repair instructions to an external device (e.g., technician’s or operator’s interface) (paragraphs 0027, 0049, 0051, 0054).}
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Arantes and Bachant teaches the limitations set forth above. Arantes further discloses:
acquire vehicle data of the vehicle from a device or database outside of the vehicle in which the abnormality is detected; and {The system architecture includes external management systems that store equipment (i.e., vehicle) data. The system acquires this data from an external source for analysis and repair decision making (paragraphs 0031, 0048-0049).}
determine the abnormal level based on the acquired vehicle data. {The system determines a severity level (i.e., abnormal level) by analyzing vehicle data retrieved from external sources (paragraphs 0044-0045, 0095).}
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Arantes and Bachant teaches the limitations set forth above. Arantes further discloses:
acquire an inventory status of a replacement part for the target part at the repair site {The system retrieves parts availability data (i.e., inventory status) for a given repair site, including the replacement part for the identified faulty component (i.e., target part) (paragraphs 0063, 0071).}
when the abnormal level is less than a predetermined value, acquire, based on the inventory status, the repair site data of the repair site which has the replacement part in stock or requires a shortest number of days to receive the replacement part, among the repair sites starting from the registered site {When the severity level (i.e., abnormal level) is low, the system may delay repairs or route to a scheduled or less urgent repair site. The system evaluates repair sites based on parts availability and selects an optimal site (i.e., has the replacement part in stock or requires a shortest number of days to receive the replacement part) (paragraphs 0045, 0049, 0063, 0071).}
display the registered site to the external device {The system maintains repair site data and provides this data to external operator devices. The system may pre-determine a repair site (i.e., registered site) (paragraphs 0041, 0049, 0105).}
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Arantes and Bachant teaches the limitations set forth above. Arantes further discloses:
acquire a current location of the vehicle; {The system acquires GPS data which is part of the vehicle metadata or retrieved from the operator device (paragraphs 0026, 0071, 0088, 0105).}
acquire a reservation status of the repair site; and {The system acquires repair site reservation status and repair site data to determine optimal repair timing and location (paragraphs 0063, 0105, 0107).}
when the abnormal level is equal to or more than a predetermined value, acquire, based on the reservation status, the repair site data of the repair site which is allowed to be reserved immediately or which is allowed to respond at an earliest possible time among the repair sites within a range of distance by or time for which the vehicle is allowed to travel starting from the current location; and {When the severity level (i.e., abnormal level) is high, the system is configured to take immediate action and acquire repair site data based on response availability (paragraphs 0045, 0063).}
transmit a display instruction to display the repair site to the external device. {The system maintains repair site data and provides this data to external operator devices. The system may pre-determine a repair site (i.e., registered site) (paragraphs 0041, 0049, 0105).}
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Arantes and Bachant teaches the limitations set forth above. Bachant further teaches:
when the abnormal level is equal to or more than a predetermined value and a distance by or a time for which the vehicle is allowed to travel from the current location of the vehicle at the time when the abnormality was detected is equal to or less than a threshold value, acquire emergency stop site data of a safe emergency stop site where the vehicle is allowed to legally stop {When the diagnostic analysis detects a high criticality level (i.e., values above or below a threshold), the vehicle is instructed to come to a safe stop. This action may happen without continuing operation (i.e., a distance/time threshold) (paragraphs 0037, 0049, 0053).}
transmit a stop instruction to stop at the emergency stop site to the external device {When a high criticality issue is detected, the autonomous vehicle is instructed to come to a safe stop. This stop action is part of a broader workflow that includes communications between the internal computing system and external entities (e.g., routing service, backup service) (paragraphs 0033, 0037, 0039, 0049).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Arantes and Bachant to include the auto-monitoring and maintenance features of Bachant, to improve time efficiency and reducing errors in the process. (see paragraph [0004] of Bachant).
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Arantes and Bachant teaches the limitations set forth above. Bachant further teaches:
when the abnormal level is equal to or more than a predetermined value and a distance by or a time for which the vehicle is allowed to travel from the current location of the vehicle at the time when the abnormality was detected is equal to or less than a threshold value, configured to contact an on-site repair service provider, and transmit a distance by or a time for which the vehicle is allowed to travel to the on-site repair service provider. {When a high criticality issue is detected, the system determines that the vehicle is in immediate danger of failure and brings the vehicle to a stop. The system is further described as being able to communicate with a backup service or tow truck (i.e., on-site service provider) to recover the vehicle. The system also dispatches actions based on vehicle location and criticality level (i.e. transmission of distance-time constraints (paragraphs 0033, 0037, 0039, 0049).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Arantes and Bachant to include the auto-monitoring and maintenance features of Bachant, to improve time efficiency and reducing errors in the process. (see paragraph [0004] of Bachant).
Claim 17
Regarding claim 17, Arantes discloses:
A repair site transmission method comprising {“Some implementations include arrangements and techniques (i.e., methods) for managing equipment.” (paragraph 0002).}
storing a registered site registered based on information acquired from an automatically controllable vehicle or a user of the vehicle {The system stores registered repair sites in a repair site fleet management data structure and selects a repair site based on information acquired from the vehicle or the user (paragraphs 0049, 0071, 0105).}
acquiring an inventory status of a replacement part for a target part or a reservation status of a repair site where the target part of the vehicle in which a predetermined abnormality is detected is to be repaired or to be replaced {The system detects a vehicle abnormality (e.g., from sensor data) and, in response, acquires repair site data where the faulty part is to be repaired (paragraphs 0049, 0063, 0105).}
receiving an input of data indicating an abnormal level associated with a predetermined abnormality of the vehicle {The system receives sensor data from the equipment (e.g., vehicle) indicating abnormalities such as a fault condition. The sensor data is interpreted to detect events (e.g., loud engine noise, pump failure) which correspond to predetermined abnormalities (paragraphs 0037-0038, 0041, 0047).}
transmitting the acquired repair site data to an external device {The system acquires repair site data (e.g., site name, GPS coordinates) and transmits it to external devices such as a technician device or operator device (paragraphs 0049, 0105).}
Arantes does not disclose:
acquiring repair site data of the determined repair site according to the abnormal level and the inventory status or the reservation status;
acquiring a current location of the vehicle;
determining, based on the abnormal level, whether to acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the registered site or to acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the current location;
when the abnormal level is less than a predetermined value, acquiring the repair site data of the repair site starting from the registered site;
when the abnormal level is equal to or more than a predetermined value, acquiring the repair site data of the repair site starting from the current location;
based on the acquired repair site data, determine a repair route for the vehicle to the repair site according to the abnormal level,
wherein the repair route starts at either the registered site or the current location; and
causing the vehicle to automatically travel the repair route to the repair site.
However, Bachant, in a similar field of endeavor directed to manage and maintain equipment teaches:
acquiring repair site data of the determined repair site according to the abnormal level and the inventory status or the reservation status {The system determines the criticality level of an issue and, depending on the severity, selects and appropriate maintenance facility considering capacity, availability, and part specialization (i.e., inventory/reservation status) (paragraphs 0037, 0040-0042, 0049).}
acquiring a current location of the vehicle {The autonomous vehicle determines and/or uses its location based on diagnostic data captured by sensors and further uses the vehicle’s current position in maintenance facility selection and routing (paragraphs 0014, 0031, 0042).}
determining, based on the abnormal level, whether to acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the registered site or to acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the current location {A criticality level is determined based on diagnostic data and, depending on that level, vehicles are routed immediately (high criticality) or after completing operations (medium/low) (paragraphs 0048-0049, 0051-0052).}
when the abnormal level is less than a predetermined value, acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the registered site {Low criticality issues result in scheduling maintenance for a future time, i.e., acquires repair site data in a non-urgent, scheduled context rather than from the vehicle’s immediate location (paragraphs 0052, 0056).}
when the abnormal level is equal to or more than a predetermined value, acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the current location {When the issue meets or exceeds a threshold, the system dispatches the vehicle to a maintenance facility (i.e., acquires repair site data based on the vehicle’s current position) (paragraphs 0042, 0049, 0051).}
based on the acquired repair site data, determine a repair route to the repair site for the vehicle according to the abnormal level {The routing system dynamically routes the autonomous vehicle to a maintenance facility based on the determined criticality level and maintenance parameters (paragraphs 0033, 0039, 0043).}
wherein the repair route starts at either the registered site or the current location {The autonomous vehicle is routed to a maintenance facility based on its operational state and severity level. The vehicle can be dispatched from its present position to the nearest available maintenance facility (paragraphs 0042, 0051-0052).}
causing the vehicle to automatically travel the repair route to the repair site {Upon determining the need for maintenance, the autonomous vehicle is instructed to autonomously drive to the selected maintenance facility (paragraphs 0039, 0051-0052).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the equipment maintenance management features of Arantes to include the auto-monitoring and maintenance features of Bachant, to improve time efficiency and reducing error in the process. (see paragraph [0004] of Bachant).
Claim 18
Regarding claim 18, Arantes discloses:
A repair site transmission device configured to {The system includes service computing device(s) that function as a repair site transmission device, being configured to acquire, process, and transmit repair site data (paragraphs 0022, 0077-0079).}
store a registered site registered based on information acquired from an automatically controllable vehicle or a user of the vehicle {The system stores registered repair sites in a repair site fleet management data structure and selects a repair site based on information acquired from the vehicle or the user (paragraphs 0049, 0071, 0105).}
receive an input of data indicating an abnormal level associated with a predetermined abnormality of the vehicle {The system receives sensor data from the equipment (e.g., vehicle) indicating abnormalities such as a fault condition. The sensor data is interpreted to detect events (e.g., loud engine noise, pump failure) which correspond to predetermined abnormalities (paragraphs 0037-0038, 0041, 0047).}
acquire repair site data of a repair site where a part of the vehicle in which the predetermined abnormality is detected is to be repaired or to be replaced; {The system detects a vehicle abnormality (e.g., from sensor data) and, in response, acquires repair site data where the faulty part is to be repaired (paragraphs 0049, 0063, 0105).}
transmit the acquired repair site data to an external device; {The system acquires repair site data (e.g., site name, GPS coordinates) and transmits it to external devices such as a technician device or operator device (paragraphs 0049, 0105).}
Arantes does not disclose:
acquire a current location of the vehicle;
determine, based on the abnormal level, whether to acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the registered site or to acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the current location;
when the abnormal level is less than a predetermined value, acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the registered site;
when the abnormal level is equal to or more than a predetermined value, acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the current location;
based on the acquired repair site data, determine a repair route for the vehicle to the repair site according to the abnormal level;
wherein the repair route starts at either the registered site or the current location; and
cause the vehicle to automatically travel the repair route to the repair site.
However, Bachant, in a similar field of endeavor directed to manage and maintain equipment teaches:
acquire a current location of the vehicle {The autonomous vehicle determines and/or uses its location based on diagnostic data captured by sensors and further uses the vehicle’s current position in maintenance facility selection and routing (paragraphs 0014, 0031, 0042).}
determine, based on the abnormal level, whether to acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the registered site or to acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the current location {A criticality level is determined based on diagnostic data and, depending on that level, vehicles are routed immediately (high criticality) or after completing operations (medium/low) (paragraphs 0048-0049, 0051-0052).}
when the abnormal level is less than a predetermined value, acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the registered site {Low criticality issues result in scheduling maintenance for a future time, i.e., acquires repair site data in a non-urgent, scheduled context rather than from the vehicle’s immediate location (paragraphs 0052, 0056).}
when the abnormal level is equal to or more than a predetermined value, acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the current location {When the issue meets or exceeds a threshold, the system dispatches the vehicle to a maintenance facility (i.e., acquires repair site data based on the vehicle’s current position) (paragraphs 0042, 0049, 0051).}
based on the acquired repair site data, determine a repair route to the repair site for the vehicle according to the abnormal level {The routing system dynamically routes the autonomous vehicle to a maintenance facility based on the determined criticality level and maintenance parameters (paragraphs 0033, 0039, 0043).}
wherein the repair route starts at either the registered site or the current location {The autonomous vehicle is routed to a maintenance facility based on its operational state and severity level. The vehicle can be dispatched from its present position to the nearest available maintenance facility (paragraphs 0042, 0051-0052).}
cause the vehicle to automatically travel the repair route to the repair site {Upon determining the need for maintenance, the autonomous vehicle is instructed to autonomously drive to the selected maintenance facility (paragraphs 0039, 0051-0052).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the equipment maintenance management features of Arantes to include the auto-monitoring and maintenance features of Bachant, to improve time efficiency and reducing errors in the process. (see paragraph [0004] of Bachant).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Arantes and Bachant in further view of Starks (US 20180308069).
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, while the combination of Arantes and Bachant teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach:
wherein the site input by the user is a site input into a schedule managed by the user.
However, Starks, in a similar field of endeavor directed to vehicle servicing teaches:
wherein the site input by the user is a site input into a schedule managed by the user. {The user may directly manage its schedule (paragraph 0023).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Arantes and Bachant to include the computer-assisted vehicle servicing features of Starks, to efficiently bring automotive services to the customer or automatically transport the customer's vehicle to the point of sale or service. (see paragraph [0002] of Starks).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Arantes and Bachant, in further view of Rivere (US 20130090969).
Claim 16
Regarding claim 16, while the combination of Arantes and Bachant teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach:
when contacting the on-site repair service provider, is configured to store, as the registered site, a meeting site between the user and the on-site repair service provider, identified based on speech in a call between the user of the vehicle and the on-site repair service provider.
However, Rivere, in a similar field of endeavor directed to track mobile workforce or task persons using a GPS-enabled cellular phone, tablet or other electronic device, teaches:
when contacting the on-site repair service provider, is configured to store, as the registered site, a meeting site between the user and the on-site repair service provider, identified based on speech in a call between the user of the vehicle and the on-site repair service provider. {Customers can interact with the system via an audio phone-based interface using interactive voice recognition (IVR) to manage appointments and track service workers. It is also described coordinating a meeting location between a customer and task person via smartphone communication and storing that location as appointment data (paragraphs 0048, 0089, 0112).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Arantes and Bachant to include the interactive voice recognition (IVR) features of Rivere, to provide a comprehensive mobile work force solution that improves work force capability, productivity and visibility as well as improve the quality of the customer experience. (see paragraph [0008] of Rivere).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/17/2025 have been carefully considered. The headings and page numbers below correspond to those used by applicant.
Objections under 35 U.S.C. §112(f)
Claims objections under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) are withdrawn in view of proposed amendments.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)
Claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) are withdrawn in view of proposed amendments.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Under Step 2A, Prong One, the independent claims continue to recite a judicial exception. The claims are directed to collecting information, evaluating that information using a threshold comparison, and determining a repair site and route based on the evaluation. These steps constitute observation, evaluation, and decision making, which fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. The fact that the claim is implemented on a “repair site transmission device” does not alter the character of the recited decision logic.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional limitation of “causing the vehicle to automatically travel the repair route” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite any specific improvement to autonomous vehicle control or hardware, or navigation technology. The focus of the claim remains the decision-making logic rather than a technological improvement.
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and perform routine computing and control functions. No inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter is present.
Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 are maintained.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
On pages 11-16, Applicant offers remarks regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103. While well taken, they are not persuasive.
Applicant offers on pages 11-14 :
Claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103 as being unpatentable in view of Arantes, Bachant, and Bodin (US 2006/0052921). This rejection is respectfully traversed as follows.
As explained above, independent claim 1 is amended to recite the features of claims 2, 5, and 6, now-cancelled. Specifically, claim 1 is amended to recite:
determine, based on the abnormal level, whether to acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the registered site or to acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the current location; when the abnormal level is less than a predetermined value, acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the registered site;
when the abnormal level is equal to or more than a predetermined value, acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the current location; based on the acquired repair site data, determine a repair route for the vehicle to the repair site according to the abnormal level, and wherein the repair route starts at either the registered site or the current location.
In rejecting claim 2, the Examiner acknowledges that Arantes and Bachant fail to teach "determine, based on the abnormal level, whether to acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the registered site or to acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the current location." The Examiner alleges that Bodin this limitation. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Bodin describes an on-demand system where diagnostic codes are transmitted to a diagnostic service provider. Offers from potential repair service providers are then presented to the operator of the vehicle. See Bodin, abstract. Location information of the vehicle and/or the operator's desired itinerary are used to search for providers near the location of the vehicle at an expected time of arrival. Additionally, successive GPS measures are used to calculate vehicle direction and velocity, which can be used to determine upcoming towns on the vehicle's path as well as an estimated time of arrival. See Bodin, paras. [0060] and [0081]-[0082]. If the operator declines all offers from service providers, the pool of bids may be widened to include service provides that are further in distance or do not meet the user's preferences. See Bodin, para. [0078]. There is no suggestion in Bodin of determining whether to acquire the repair site data for repair sites starting from the location of a user registered site or a current location based on an abnormal level associated with a predetermined abnormality of the vehicle. Rather, the selection is only based on location and/or user preference, such as preferring to use a car dealership for repairs.
With respect to claims 5 and 6, the Examiner asserts that Arantes teaches the limitations of claims 5 and 6. Specifically, the Examiner alleges that Arantes teaches "when the abnormal level is less than a predetermined value, acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the registered site" and "when the abnormal level is equal to or more than a predetermined value, acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the current location." The Examiner concludes that Arantes uses a severity level to predict equipment failure and schedule an optimal repair site, where the system instructs immediate repair scheduling based on severity level. Arantes teaches determining the location of the repair site based on several parameters, but not determining a desired starting location for the vehicle (i.e., registered site or current location) based on an abnormal level, which is associated with a predetermined abnormality of the vehicle. In the present disclosure, when the abnormal level is low, the need for service is considered to not be critical. Therefore, the user's preferred, and more convenient, starting location (i.e., a registered site, such as their home), can be used as the starting location from which to acquire repair site data. In contrast, when the need for service is high, the current location of the vehicle is used as the starting location from which to acquire repair site data.
Furthermore, independent claim 1 is amended to require "based on the acquired repair site data, determine a repair route for the vehicle to the repair site according to the abnormal level, wherein the repair route starts at either the registered site or the current location." None of the cited prior art references, alone or combined, teach determining a repair route starting from a registered site or a current location based on an abnormal level of the vehicle.
For at least the reasons above, amended independent claim 1 is patentable over Arantes, Bachant, and Bodin. Claims 2, 5, and 6 are cancelled. By virtue of their dependency, claims 9, 14, and 15 are patentable over Arantes, Bachant, and Bodin. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection of claims 9, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is respectfully requested.
Applicant’s arguments above have been considered but are moot, given that they are directed to the present amendments, which modified the scope of the claim and necessitated the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Instead of restating here, examiner directs applicant’s attention to the claim analysis above. The same applies to arguments regarding amended claim 18 offered by Applicant in page 16.
Applicant further offers in pages 14-15 :
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103 as being unpatentable in view of Arantes, Bachant, and Starks (US 2018/0308069). This rejection is respectfully traversed as follows.
Arantes and Bachant fail to show or suggest the limitations of amended independent claim 1. Further, Starks fails to teach "determine, based on the abnormal level, whether to acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the registered site or to acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the current location; when the abnormal level is less than a predetermined value, acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the registered site; when the abnormal level is equal to or more than a predetermined value, acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the current location; and based on the acquired repair site data, determine a repair route for the vehicle to the repair site according to the abnormal level, wherein the repair route starts at either the registered site or the current location."
As Starks cannot remedy what Arantes and Bachant lack, the combination of Arantes, Bachant, and Starks cannot teach or suggest every limitation of amended independent claim 1. Further, even assuming arguendo that a person of ordinary skill in the art, applying common sense, were to combine Arantes, Bachant, and Starks in the manner suggested by the Examiner, the combination would still fail to render amended independent claim 1 obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to supply the missing elements without the benefit of Applicant's own disclosure as a guide.
For at least the reasons above, amended independent claim 1 is patentable over Arantes, Bachant, and Starks. By virtue of its dependency, claim 4 is also patentable over Arantes, Bachant, and Starks. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is respectfully requested.
Examiner maintains its position regarding claim 4 rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 and directs Applicant’s attention to the analysis above.
Applicant further offers on pages 15-16 :
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103 as being unpatentable in view of Arantes, Bachant, Bodin, and Rivere (US 2013/0090969). This rejection is respectfully traversed as follows.
As explained above, Arantes, Bachant, and Bodin fail to show or suggest the limitations of amended independent claim 1. Further, Rivere fails to teach "determine, based on the abnormal level, whether to acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the registered site or to acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the current location; when the abnormal level is less than a predetermined value, acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the registered site; when the abnormal level is equal to or more than a predetermined value, acquire the repair site data of the repair site starting from the current location; and based on the acquired repair site data, determine a repair route for the vehicle to the repair site according to the abnormal level, wherein the repair route starts at either the registered site or the current location."
As Rivere cannot remedy what Arantes, Bachant, and Bodin lack, the combination of Arantes, Bachant, Bodin, and Rivere cannot teach or suggest every limitation of amended independent claim 1. Further, even assuming arguendo that a person of ordinary skill in the art, applying common sense, were to combine Arantes, Bachant, Bodin, and Rivere in the manner suggested by the Examiner, the combination would still fail to render amended independent claim 1 obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to supply the missing elements without the benefit of Applicant's own disclosure as a guide.
For at least the reasons above, amended independent claim 1 is patentable over Arantes, Bachant, Bodin, and Rivere. By virtue of its dependency, claim 16 is also patentable over Arantes, Bachant, Bodin, and Rivere. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is respectfully requested.
Examiner maintains its position regarding claim 16 rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 and directs Applicant’s attention to the analysis above.
Conclusion
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 CARLOS F MONTALVO whose telephone number is (703)756-5863. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00AM - 5:30PM; First Fridays OOO.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/C.F.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629