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 .
This office action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 7 November 2025 and the Information Disclosure Statements filed on 7 November 2025, 25 November 2025, and 22 December 2025.
This office action is made Non Final.
Claims 1, 8, 11, 18, and 21 have been amended.
Claims 22-23 have been added.
All rejections from the previous office action have been withdrawn as necessitated by the amendment.
Claims 1-23 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 21 are independent claims.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/7/25 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/7/25, 11/25/25, and 12/22/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Note: Applicant is reminded of 37 CFR 1.98(5) states that that the number of pages of each NPL reference submitted must also be disclosed on the NPL’s listing on the IDS.
Specification
After reevaluation of the accepted Abstract filed on 2/28/24, the abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims and/or written like a claim. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second routing diagram" in “the second routing diagram is a member” step. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 1 as “a second routing diagram is a member of the second set of routing diagrams”. Claims 11 and 21 recite this similar issue as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a second routing diagram” in the “displaying” step. However, Claim 1 already introduced the elements/term(s) “a second routing diagram”. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the elements/term(s) “a second routing diagram” of claim 3 should depend on “a second routing diagram” of Claim 1 or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this portion of limitation as “defining a sequence between said components.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a second routing diagram” in the “displaying” step. However, Claim 11 already introduced the elements/term(s) “a second routing diagram”. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the elements/term(s) “a second routing diagram” of claim 13 should depend on “a second routing diagram” of Claim 11 or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this portion of limitation as “defining a sequence between said components.
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 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) 1-6, 8, 10-16, 18, 20, 21, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baum et al (US 6606731 B1 thereafter "Baum") in further view of Stannard et al (20120256925, 2012) in further view of Kumagai (US 20070204254 A1) in view of Fuji et al (US 5831618 A thereafter "Fuji").
As per independent claim 1, Baum disclose(s) a method comprising:
displaying, on a display, a first routing diagram that includes a first user-selectable control and depicts a first portion of a routable circuit or line disposed within a vehicle, wherein: the first routing diagram is a member of a first set of routing diagrams, the first set of routing diagrams, a second set of routing diagrams, and metadata corresponding to the first user-selectable control is contained in data storage, the second routing diagram is a member of the second set of routing diagrams, (A plurality of routing diagrams may be received as vector files [See Col 4, Ln 2-29]. The routing diagrams may be part of a set(s) of diagrams (first set of routing diagrams) since they may relate to similar lines, components, systems, etc. The schematic diagrams may relate to an airplane (vehicle) [See Col 15, Ln 41-50]. Fig. 23-25 show routing diagrams with components of the airplane [See Col 15, Ln 2-25]. All component data (first/second set of routing diagrams), and XML data (metadata) storing hotspot information is stored within memory [See Col 9, Ln 37- Col 10, ln 7])
the first user-selectable control includes a (textual) icon corresponding to a broken point in the routable circuit or line in the first routing diagram and representing that the routable circuit or line continues on a second diagram, the first user-selectable control (including the textual icon) is distinct from the first portion of the routable circuit or line (Note: the claim language does not explicitly state how the control is explicitly distinct from the first portion of the routable circuit or line. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Furthermore, Baum discloses the user may select an off-sheet reference/hotspot (form of an icon) that is displayed distinctly in order to display another wiring diagram/document [See Col 15, Ln 26-30, and Col 16, Ln 5-10]. Such off-sheet reference/hotspot may be a wire number or connector number (form of an icon) that is also within another wiring diagram/document [See Col 15, Ln 26-30]. FIG 23 discloses icon identifier 9010-20 associated with a wire from port A of D95125P that has a broken point. FIG 23 discloses icon identifier 9010-20 as a label. Thus, off-sheet reference/hotspot is separate from the wire/connector, thus distinct)
the second routing diagram depicts a second portion of the routable circuit or line disposed within the vehicle, and that continues from the broken point in the routable circuit or line in the first routing diagram, and the metadata comprises a set of related identifiers including: a destination routing diagram identifier corresponding to the second routing diagram, a selected hotspot identifier corresponding to the first user-selectable control, and a routable component identifier or a terminal identifier to indicate the second portion of the routable circuit or line is to be highlighted in a selection of the first user-selectable control … (Hotspot data with all objects and connections are stored as XML data in memory [See Col 13, Ln 62-Col 14, Ln 12, and Col 15, Ln 1-12]. The user may select an off-sheet reference/hotspot that is displayed in order to display another wiring diagram/document (second routing diagram) [See Col 15, Ln 26-30, and Col 16, Ln 5-10]. Such off-sheet reference/hotspot may be a wire number or connector number ("selected hotspot identifier corresponding to the first user-selectable control "/"routable component identifier or a terminal identifier …of the routable circuit or line shown in the second routing diagram") [See Col 15, Ln 26-30]. All hotspots are highlighted via color by the system, and the user may select particular wires to highlight connected segments [See Col 9, Ln 37-49, and Col 15, Ln 13-25]. The user may click a wire (path of the particular line) and highlight its path, as well as all remotely connected wires in the wire net which a skilled artisan would understand includes wires on separate diagram sheets [See Col 10, Ln 65-Col 11, Ln 4; Col 11, Ln 39-62; and Col 15, Ln 13-25]. Selection of wire number or connector number (identifier of the particular circuit or line) may cause a lookup within a database for the link(s) to the another wiring diagram/document (destination routing diagram identifier of the second routing diagram) [See Col 19, Ln 12-19]] and selection of a wire net causing highlighting may be performed by the same click input [See Col 11, Ln 39-62, and Col 15, Ln 26-30]]
retrieving, by a processor based on the set of related identifiers, the second routing diagram from the data storage in response to a selection of the first user-selectable control while the first routing diagram is displayed on the display, [The user may select an off-sheet reference/hotspot that is displayed in order to display another wiring diagram/document [See Col 15, Ln 26-30, and Col 16, Ln 5-10]. Such off-sheet reference/hotspot may be a wire number or connector number within another wiring diagram/document [See Col 15, Ln 26-30]; Hotspot data with all objects and connections are stored as XML data in memory [See Col 13, Ln 62-Col 14, Ln 12, and Col 15, Ln 1-12]]
and displaying, on the display… in response to the selection of the first user-control selection control and the processor using at least a portion of the metadata with a jump instruction, the second routing diagram with the second portion of the routable circuit or line highlighted. [The user may select an off-sheet reference/hotspot that is displayed in order to display another wiring diagram/document [See Col 15, Ln 26-30, and Col 16, Ln 5-10]. All hotspots are highlighted via color by the system, and the user may select particular wires to highlight connected segments [See Col 9, Ln 37-49, and Col 15, Ln 13-25]]
However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose the first user-selectable control includes a non-textual icon…wherein the first user-selectable control including the non-textual icon is distinct. However, Stannard et al discloses a symbol/icon that acts like a bidirectional hyperlink between first graphic element/”diagram” and a second graphic element”/diagram (0034, 0055) In addition, Stannard discloses identifiers to the first graphics (form of a first diagram) and the second graphics (form of a second diagram) (0063-0067)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified GUI elements and functionality of Baum with the GUI elements and hyperlink functionality of Stannard et al since it would have provided the benefit of an easy, fast, and logical traversal in forward and return directions through hierarchically-ordered, computer- or processor-generated collection of graphics. (0012)
Thus, in conjunction with Baum, the combination of the cited art teaches the a first routing diagram that includes a first user-selectable control and depicts a first portion of a routable circuit or line disposed within a vehicle, wherein: the first user-selectable control includes a non-textual icon corresponding to a broken point in the routable circuit or line in the first routing diagram and representing that the routable circuit or line continues on a second diagram, the first user-selectable control is distinct from the first portion of the routable circuit or line.
Furthermore, the cited art fails to specifically disclose metadata comprises a set of related identifiers including: :a departure routing set identifier corresponding to the first set of routing diagrams, a departure routing diagram identifier corresponding to the first routing diagram” and "displaying, on the display in place of the first routing diagram, … the second routing diagram…"
However, Kumagai discloses a circuit diagram broken up into multiple sheets wherein a sheet is divided along the x-axis and y-axis into a plurality of blocks and the coordinates show the blocks on the sheet. In other words, Kumagai discloses one or more sheets where in each sheet comprises multiple sets of component routing diagrams wherein each block of the sheet corresponds to a component routing diagram in a which a user can jump to. Furthermore, each sheet and block have their own respective identifiers for use in the jumping instruction. FIG 3B, C and 0055 discloses that an instruction includes a sheet identifier (identifier to a first sets of component routing diagrams) and a block identifier (identifier corresponding to a component routing diagram). Therefore, Kumagai discloses at least a first sheet identifier and a block identifier. Thus, Kumagai discloses a departure routing set identifier corresponding to the first set of routing diagrams. Kumagai also discloses a departure routing diagram identifier corresponding to the first routing diagram. Furthermore, Kumagai discloses "displaying, on the display in place of the first routing diagram, … the second routing diagram…" Kumagai discloses a system wherein a user may select a component pin, signal connector, or cross reference to perform a jump to connected elements in a schematic sheet [See ¶-121-125]. The new sheet may replace the previous view by displaying a full view of the sheet [See ¶-56-57].
Thus, in conjunction with Baum and Stannard et al, the combination of the cited art teaches the metadata comprises a set of related identifiers including: a departure routing set identifier corresponding to the first set of routing diagrams, a departure routing diagram identifier corresponding to the first routing diagram, a destination routing diagram identifier corresponding to the second routing diagram, a selected hotspot identifier corresponding to the first user-selectable control, and a routable component identifier or a terminal identifier to indicate the second portion of the routable circuit or line is to be highlighted in response to a selection of the first user-selectable control and displaying, on the display in place of the first routing diagram in response to the selection of the first user-selectable control and the processor using at least a portion of the metadata within a jump instruction, the second routing diagram with the second portion of the routable circuit or line highlighted.
Furthermore, the cited art do(es) not disclose " a destination routing set identifier corresponding to the second set of routing diagrams”. However, Fuji discloses " a destination routing set identifier corresponding to the second set of routing diagrams” .Fuji discloses that when the user selects the symbol CR 66, the system retrieves the submap for the symbol [See Col 4, Ln 21-36]. The retrieved submap is displayed with the route (path) between symbols, as shown in Fig 5 [See Col 4, Ln 32-35]. As shown in Fig 2, the selected CR 66 (Computer room) is associated with data (first metadata) such as a submap ID "M4" [See Col 3, Ln 4-7]. Map "M4" includes symbol names of network items within the CR 66 (Computer room) [See Col 1, Ln 59-66, and Col 4, Ln 21-36]. Fig 2 shows that the Map "M4" is a map (second routing diagram) is within the set of maps "M2" (second set of routing diagrams) [See Col 3, Ln 4-7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baum's wiring diagram system, Kumagai's full view to incorporate the teachings of Fuji’s network user interface. Motivation to do so would be reduce the burden of users making a search through hierarchically layered network maps, as taught by Fuji [See Col 1, Ln 35-39].
Thus, in conjunction with Baum, Stannard et al, and Kumagai, the combination of the cited art teaches the metadata comprises a set of related identifiers including: a departure routing set identifier corresponding to the first set of routing diagrams, a departure routing diagram identifier corresponding to the first routing diagram, a destination routing set identifier corresponding to the second set of routing diagrams, a destination routing diagram identifier corresponding to the second routing diagram, a selected hotspot identifier corresponding to the first user-selectable control, and a routable component identifier or a terminal identifier to indicate the second portion of the routable circuit or line is to be highlighted in response to a selection of the first user-selectable control and displaying, on the display in place of the first routing diagram in response to the selection of the first user-selectable control and the processor using at least a portion of the metadata within a jump instruction, the second routing diagram with the second portion of the routable circuit or line highlighted.
As per dependent claim 2, Claim 2 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Baum, Kumagai disclose(s) the method of claim 1, wherein the first set of routing diagrams includes multiple routing diagrams, wherein the second set of routing diagrams includes multiple routing diagrams different than the multiple routing diagrams of the first set of routing diagrams, and ... [Baum, A plurality of routing diagrams (first/second vector graphics files) may be received as vector files [See Col 4, Ln 2-29]. The routing diagrams may be part of a set(s) of diagrams (first/second set of routing diagrams) since they may relate to similar lines, components, systems. A skilled artisan would understand that the another wiring diagram/document may be a different system/subsystem ("different than the multiple routing diagrams of the first set of routing diagrams")] However, Baum, Kumagai do(es) not disclose "wherein the multiple routing diagrams of the first set of routing diagrams are arranged according to a first sequence of multiple routing diagrams and the second set of routing diagrams are arranged according to a second sequence of multiple routing diagrams. " However, based on the rejection of claim 1 and the rationale, including the motivation, incorporated, Fuji discloses "wherein the multiple routing diagrams of the first set of routing diagrams are arranged according to a first sequence of multiple routing diagrams and the second set of routing diagrams are arranged according to a second sequence of multiple routing diagrams. " Fuji discloses that Fig 2 shows that the Map "M4" (second routing diagram) is within the set of maps "M2" (second set of routing diagrams) [See Col 3, Ln 4-7]. Fig 2 shows that the set of maps of M0 (multiple different routing diagrams) are different and arranged in a sequence different from the set of maps of M2.
As per dependent claim 3, Baum, Kumagai disclose(s) the method of claim 1, further comprising: displaying, on the display, a graphical user interface and a second routing diagram within the graphical user interface, wherein the second routing diagram is a member of the first set of routing diagrams, wherein the graphical user interface includes a second user-selectable control selectable to select a different routing diagram, and wherein displaying the first routing diagram occurs in response to a selection of the second user-selectable control while the second routing diagram is displayed. [Baum, A plurality of routing diagrams may be received as vector files [See Col 4, Ln 2-29]. The routing diagrams may be part of a set(s) of diagrams (first set of routing diagrams) since they may relate to similar lines, components, systems, e.g. electrical components (first set of routing diagrams). The user may select an off-sheet reference/hotspot that is displayed in order to display another wiring diagram/document (second routing diagram) [See Col 15, Ln 26-30, and Col 16, Ln 5-10]. A skilled artisan would understand that the displayed another wiring diagram/document would similarly contain an off-sheet reference/hotspot to the first wiring diagram/document. Such off-sheet reference/hotspot may be a wire number or connector number (second user-selectable control) [See Col 15, Ln 26-30]. Selection of wire number or connector number may cause a lookup within a database for the link(s) to the another wiring diagram/document (first routing diagram) [See Col 19, Ln 12-19]. Examiner notes that the reference to "a second routing diagram" appears to denote a different routing diagram than that indicated in the independent claim, in view of the "member of the first set of routing diagrams" appearing to be in conflict with the independent claim]
As per dependent claim 4, Baum, Kumagai disclose(s) the method of claim 1, wherein the jump instruction is contained in the data storage. [Baum, Hotspot data with all objects and connections are stored as XML data in memory [See Col 13, Ln 62-Col 14, Ln 12, and Col 15, Ln 1-12]]
As per dependent claim 5, Baum, Kumagai disclose(s) the method of claim 4, wherein the jump instruction includes the metadata corresponding to the first user-selectable control. [Baum, The user may select an off-sheet reference/hotspot that is displayed in order to display another wiring diagram/document (second routing diagram) [See Col 15, Ln 26-30, and Col 16, Ln 5-10]. Such off-sheet reference/hotspot may be a wire number or connector number [See Col 15, Ln 26-30]. Hotspot data (first user-selectable control) with all objects and connections are stored as XML data in memory [See Col 13, Ln 62-Col 14, Ln 12, and Col 15, Ln 1-12]]
As per dependent claim 6, Baum, Kumagai disclose(s) the method of claim 4, wherein the jump instruction includes metadata indicating the second portion of the routable circuit or line is to be highlighted. [Baum, All hotspots are highlighted via color by the system, and the user may select particular wires to highlight connected segments [See Col 9, Ln 37-49, and Col 15, Ln 13-25]. Hotspot data with all objects and connections are stored as XML data in memory [See Col 13, Ln 62-Col 14, Ln 12, and Col 15, Ln 1-12]]
[Examiner's note: The limitations "or", and "wherein if" denote an alternative limitation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation requires only one from the list to be taught]
As per dependent claim 8, Claim 8 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Baum disclose(s) the method of claim 1, further comprising: reading, by the processor, a markup language file to determine the metadata corresponding to the first user-selectable control, wherein the markup language file includes:…the selected hotspot identifier corresponding to the first user-selectable control, the destination routing diagram identifier corresponding to the second routing diagram and the routable component identifier or the terminal identifier. (Hotspot data with all objects and connections are stored as XML data in memory [See Col 13, Ln 62-Col 14, Ln 12, and Col 15, Ln 1-12]. The user may select an off-sheet reference/hotspot that is displayed in order to display another wiring diagram/document (second routing diagram) [See Col 15, Ln 26-30, and Col 16, Ln 5-10]. Such off-sheet reference/hotspot may be a wire number or connector number ("selected hotspot identifier corresponding to the first user-selectable control "/"routable component identifier or a terminal identifier …of the routable circuit or line shown in the second routing diagram") [See Col 15, Ln 26-30]. All hotspots are highlighted via color by the system, and the user may select particular wires to highlight connected segments [See Col 9, Ln 37-49, and Col 15, Ln 13-25]. The user may click a wire (path of the particular line) and highlight its path, as well as all remotely connected wires in the wire net which a skilled artisan would understand includes wires on separate diagram sheets [See Col 10, Ln 65-Col 11, Ln 4; Col 11, Ln 39-62; and Col 15, Ln 13-25]. Selection of wire number or connector number (identifier of the particular circuit or line) may cause a lookup within a database for the link(s) to the another wiring diagram/document (destination routing diagram identifier of the second routing diagram) [See Col 19, Ln 12-19]] and selection of a wire net causing highlighting may be performed by the same click input [See Col 11, Ln 39-62, and Col 15, Ln 26-30]]
However, Baum does not disclose “a departure routing set identifier corresponding to the first set of routing diagrams” and “the departure routing diagram identifier corresponding to the first routing diagram”. However, based on the rejection of claim 1 and the rationale, including the motivation, incorporated, Kumagai discloses “a departure routing set identifier corresponding to the first set of routing diagrams” and “the departure routing diagram identifier corresponding to the first routing diagram”
However, Baum, Kumagai do(es) not disclose "an identifier of the second set of routing diagrams” ”. However, based on the rejection of claim 1 and the rationale, including the motivation, incorporated Fuji discloses "an identifier of the second set of routing diagrams, Fuji discloses that when the user selects the symbol CR 66, the system retrieves the submap for the symbol [See Col 4, Ln 21-36]. The retrieved submap is displayed with the route (path) between symbols, as shown in Fig 5 [See Col 4, Ln 32-35]. As shown in Fig 2, the selected CR 66 (Computer room) is associated with data (first metadata) such as a submap ID "M4" [See Col 3, Ln 4-7]. Map "M4" includes symbol names of network items within the CR 66 (Computer room) [See Col 1, Ln 59-66, and Col 4, Ln 21-36]. Fig 2 shows that the Map "M4" is a map (second routing diagram) is within the set of maps "M2" (second set of routing diagrams) [See Col 3, Ln 4-7].
As per dependent claim 10, Baum, Kumagai disclose(s) the method of claim 1, wherein the first routing diagram includes one of the following: a first electrical wiring diagram, a first optical communication line diagram, a first hydraulic line diagram, a first pneumatic line diagram, or a first vacuum line diagram, wherein if the first routing diagram includes the first electrical wiring diagram, then the second routing diagram includes a second electrical wiring diagram, the first portion of the routable circuit or line represents a first portion of an electrical circuit disposed within the vehicle, and the second portion of the routable circuit or line represents a second portion of the electrical circuit, .... [Baum, Fig. 23-25 show electrical routing diagrams with components of the airplane [See Col 15, Ln 2-25]. The user may select an off-sheet reference/hotspot that is displayed in order to display another wiring diagram/document [See Col 15, Ln 26-30, and Col 16, Ln 5-10]. Such off-sheet reference/hotspot may be a wire number or connector number [See Col 15, Ln 26-30]]
As per dependent claim(s) 11, 13-16, 20, the claim(s) is/are directed to a method analogous to the system with a processor performing the method of claim(s) 1, 3-6, 10 respectively, and is/are thus rejected under similar rationale. Baum discloses the system method is implemented on a computer [See Abstract]. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would understand that the method is performed using a memory storing instructions performed on a processor.
As per dependent claim(s) 12, 18, the claim(s) is/are directed to a method analogous to the system with a processor performing the method of claim(s) 2, 8 respectively, and is/are thus rejected under similar rationale.
As per dependent claim(s) 21, the claim(s) is/are directed to a processor performing instructions stored in a memory analogous to the method of claim(s) 1 respectively, and is/are thus rejected under similar rationale. Baum discloses the system method is implemented on a computer [See Abstract]. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would understand that the method is performed using a memory storing instructions performed on a processor.
As per dependent claim 23, Baum discloses wherein the first user-selectable control includes a textual description of the second routing diagram.(Baum discloses the user may select an off-sheet reference/hotspot (form of an icon) that is displayed in order to display another wiring diagram/document [See Col 15, Ln 26-30, and Col 16, Ln 5-10]. Such off-sheet reference/hotspot may be a wire number or connector number (form of an textual description that part of the icon) that is also within another wiring diagram/document [See Col 15, Ln 26-30]. Therefore, the wire number or connector number is a textual description of the another wiring diagram/document. )
Claim(s) 7, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baum et al in further view of Stannard et al in view of Kumagai in further view of Fuji in view of Hamatani et al (US 20060161410 A1 thereafter "Hamatani").
As per dependent claim 7, Baum, Kumagai do(es) not disclose "further comprising: receiving, by the processor, a communication from a server, wherein the communication includes information that can be used in or as the jump instruction. " On the other hand, Hamatani discloses "further comprising: receiving, by the processor, a communication from a server, wherein the communication includes information that can be used in or as the jump instruction. " Hamatani discloses a system wherein a client 110 may request and receive electrical circuit diagrams from a server for referencing [See ¶-30, 31, 63].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baum's wiring diagram system, Kumagai's full view to incorporate the teachings of Hamatani's circuit referencing. Motivation to do so would be because it would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The known technique of Hamatani's circuit referencing would have predictably resulted in reducing the resources required by the client device, and allowing a plurality of clients to reference a central server.
As per dependent claim(s) 17, the claim(s) is/are directed to a method analogous to the system with a processor performing the method of claim(s) 7 respectively, and is/are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baum et al in further view of Stannard et al in view of Kumagai in further view of Fuji in view of Takao et al (US 20200057429 A1 thereafter "Takao").
As per dependent claim 9, Baum, Kumagai disclose(s) the method of claim 1, further comprising: ... determining a component identifier corresponding to a component within the particular vehicle, and determining a second user-selectable control selectable to cause displaying the first routing diagram on the display, wherein the routable circuit or line within the vehicle is connected to the component within the particular vehicle. [Baum, The user may select an off-sheet reference/hotspot that is displayed in order to display another wiring diagram/document (second routing diagram) [See Col 15, Ln 26-30, and Col 16, Ln 5-10]. A skilled artisan would understand that the displayed another wiring diagram/document would similarly contain an off-sheet reference/hotspot to the first wiring diagram/document. Such off-sheet reference/hotspot may be a wire number or connector number (second user-selectable control) [See Col 15, Ln 26-30]. Selection of wire number or connector number may cause a lookup within a database for the link(s) to the another wiring diagram/document (first routing diagram) [See Col 19, Ln 12-19]. Fig. 23-25 show routing diagrams with components of the airplane [See Col 15, Ln 2-25]. Figs 23-25 also show that components may be connected to wires and connector numbers [See Col 9, Ln 65-Col 10, Ln 19 and Col 13, Ln 53-61]] However, Baum, Kumagai do(es) not disclose "determining a vehicle identifier corresponding to a particular vehicle, " On the other hand, Takao discloses "determining a vehicle identifier corresponding to a particular vehicle, " Takao discloses a system wherein a worker may search for a vehicle model (“vehicle identifier corresponding to a group of vehicles”) to find an electronic manual and a component view (first set of routing diagrams) [See ¶-69]. The user may select a high order category and corresponding view with the component of interest [See ¶-71-73]. Since the electronic manual corresponds to a vehicle model, a skilled artisan would understand that the component views (first/second routing diagram) and individual components would be present in a plurality of vehicles of the same model (“separate instances of a circuit or line”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baum's wiring diagram system, Kumagai's full view to incorporate the teachings of Takao’s vehicle manual. Motivation to do so would be to improve work speed, and understand vehicle maintenance in a short time, as taught by Takao [See ¶-8-9].
As per dependent claim(s) 19, the claim(s) is/are directed to a method analogous to the system with a processor performing the method of claim(s) 9 respectively, and is/are thus rejected under similar rationale..
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baum et al in further view of Stannard et al in view of Kumagai in further view of Fuji in view of Merg et al (US20180095638)
As per dependent claim 22, Baum discloses wherein an icon is connected to the routable circuit or line in the first routing diagram; however, the cited art fails to discloses wherein the non-textual icon is connected to the routable circuit or line in the first routing diagram. However, Merg discloses a hotspot includes a graphic symbol that a user can interact with; thus, discloses a form of an icon. (0071) The symbol can be a symbol representing a circuit. FIG 4 + 0111 shows the hotspot, that includes the graphic symbol, connected to a wiring harness. 0074 also discloses that the hotspot acts like a link when clicked to perform actional actions. Thus, Merg discloses a form of a non-textual icon is connected to the routable circuit or line in the first routing diagram
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified GUI elements and functionality of Baum with the GUI elements and hyperlink functionality of Merg since it would have provided the benefit of an easy, fast, and logical traversal in forward and return directions through hierarchically-ordered, computer- or processor-generated collection of graphics. (0012)
Response to Arguments
Arguments in regards of the new limitations of Claims 1, 8, 11, 21 brought forth in the amendments and not addressed by Baum, and/or Kumagai, are now in view of the new ground(s) of rejection of 35 USC 103 using the new reference(s) Stannard et al and Fuji.
All other arguments on pages 24-31 that were not addressed by the Examiner, are referring to the dependent claims which are in reference or depend to the topics above, thus the rationale above can be used to respond to the similar arguments and/or Examiner's explanation used in the rejection of those claims as described in the rejections above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 22-23 have been considered but are moot because Claims 22-23 are new claims that have not been examined before which requires a new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172