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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 07/20/2026. Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 20 have been amended. Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 have been cancelled. Claim(s) 21 have been added. Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21 are pending examination. This action is made final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
Applicant asserts that the 35 USC 103 rejection in improper. Applicant asserts that the prior art does not fully teach all claim limitations as amended in the independent claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner finds it moot. In light of the applicant’s amendments and further search and consideration the examiner would now reject the independent claims, 1, 8, and 15 as obvious in view of newly cited portions of Schweickhardt (US Pat 12,233,790). Applicant’s arguments are directed towards the newly amended limitation of the claims that recite, “detecting via a processor of a vehicle based on audio captured by an audio recording device installed on the vehicle, an audible issue with respect to a subsystem of the vehicle,” in claim 1; claims 8 and 15 use similar language. Looking at the claim as amended, Schweickhardt would teach this in Col. 12, lines 19-60; teaches a measurement device installed in the vehicle. This measurement device is capable of detecting a noise in the operation of the vehicle. Col. 13, lines 1-13; teach the system analyzing the captured data to determine that the vehicle is malfunctioning. The data would then be stored. While the data may be transmitted to a server, integrating the server device elements to the vehicle would be obvious as making integral, In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). As Schweickhardt teaches in Col. 2, lines 53-67; and Col. 3, lines 1-13; the use of a system like this allows the vehicle to capture data of a malfunction, in particular acoustic phenomena. The capturing of this data allows the vehicle to then record more data that is relevant to the time the issue is occurring. The capturing of the data by the measurement device allows for the vehicle owner to find solutions and fixes to the problems as they occur. In light of this the examiner would find at least the independent claims 1, 8,and 15 as obvious in view of the prior art. The dependent claims would be rejected at least due to their dependence on rejected subject matter. See the section below titled, “Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103,” for more detailed mapping and explanation.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/15/2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 21 recites, "[T]he method of claim 1, wherein the audio recording and the CAN messages are captured of a same detected issue of the subsystem and are posted together to the online forum." However, claim 1 already requires that the system captures the CAN messages of the subsystem while the issue is occurring and then combining the CAN messages and the audio file into one package to post online. The examiner is unable to determine how this would further limit the claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, 15, 17-18, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal (US PG Pub 2009/0177354) in view of Witliff, (US Pat 9,934,629) Jung, (US Pat 11,718,310) and Schweickhardt (US Pat 12,233,790).
Regarding claim 1, Agrawal teaches detecting, ([0018] teaches a vehicle system experiencing an error. [0025] further teaches the system determining that the error is an audible issue)
in response to detection of the audible issue, automatically triggering the audio recording device to record audio of the subsystem while the audible issue is occurring and storing the recorded audio in an audio file; ([0018] and [0025] teaches the system recording an audio of the malfunction occurring as the vehicle is operating. This is initiated by a person but could be seen as automating a known activity, In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958), “broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish it over the prior art.” As taught in Agrawal a driver, upon hearing the vehicle issue, can issue a command to the vehicle to record audio of such issue. As this claim limitation merely automates that process it is indistinguishable over Agrawal)
capturing controlling area network (CAN) messages of the subsystem while the audible issue is occurring: ([0018] teaches the system also capturing diagnostic information from the vehicle and time matching it to the sound recording. The system of Agrawal teaches the vehicle system capturing any diagnostic data sent by sensors and other vehicle elements that provide time-stamped vehicle system data. This would include messages sent between systems)
generating a package that includes the audio file and the CAN messages ([0025] teaches the system creating a stored file with the sound and diagnostic data, for a given time and issue) and
Agrawal does not teach via a processor of a vehicle based on audio captured by an audio recording device installed on the vehicle; posting the package to an online forum; receiving, via the online forum, an indication from a remote mechanic generated after posting the package; receiving a software update from a terminal of the remote mechanic to fix the issue, the software update selected based on the review of the package;
However, Witliff teaches “posting the package to an online forum” (Col. 6, lines 48-59; teaches the system sending the data collected by the vehicle system to the remote webservice) “receiving, via the online forum, an indication from a remote mechanic generated after posting the package” (Col. 6, lines 60-67; and Col. 7, lines 1-21; teaches the remote mechanic reviewing the data transmitted by the local system and transmitting an indication that they have reviewed the data) and “receiving a software update from a terminal of the remote mechanic to fix the issue,” (Col. 7, lines 13-21; teaches the remote system sending to the local system a “repair instruction” which can include “any other desired electronic file” which would include software updates for a vehicle system. These instructions are sent based on review by the remote mechanic.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Agrawal with Witliff; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to vehicle malfunction detection and systems designed to allow for easier opportunities to fix these issues. As Witliff teaches in Col. 1, lines 45-56; sometimes a vehicle owner or technician may lack the experience necessary to fix an issue present. Even though they have been able to capture the data of what’s wrong and may even understand the issue, finding the solution can be too much. By providing a system that can connect users of an online service the system can match an experienced technician/user with the vehicle owner/technician and provide the expertise needed to fix the issues present.
The combination of Agrawal and Witliff does not teach installing the software update on the subsystem.
However, Jung teaches “installing the software update on the subsystem.” (Col. 6, lines 32-67; teach the vehicle installing a software update on a subsystem)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Agrawal and Witliff with Jung; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to vehicle repairs and systems to improve this process. This includes sending and receiving data. Jung teaches that the received data can be used to install updates. As Jung teaches in Col. 1, lines 66-67 and Col. 2, lines 1-10 there is a need for vehicle to received updates as they operate. Being able to connect to servers and receive these updates to fix issues allows the vehicle to be performing at a peak level.
The combination of Agrawal, Witliff, and Jung does not teach via a processor of a vehicle based on audio captured by an audio recording device installed on the vehicle.
However, Schweickhardt teaches “via a processor of a vehicle based on audio captured by an audio recording device installed on the vehicle;” (Col. 12, lines 19-60; teaches a measurement device installed in the vehicle. This measurement device is capable of detecting a noise in the operation of the vehicle. Col. 13, lines 1-13; teach the system analyzing the captured data to determine that the vehicle is malfunctioning. The data would then be stored. While the data may be transmitted to a server, integrating the server device elements to the vehicle would be obvious as making integral, In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Agrawal, Witliff, and Jung with Schweickhardt; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to vehicle repair systems and methods for carrying out these repairs. As Schweickhardt teaches in Col. 2, lines 53-67; and Col. 3, lines 1-13; the use of a system like this allows the vehicle to capture data of a malfunction, in particular acoustic phenomena. The capturing of this data allows the vehicle to then record more data that is relevant to the time the issue is occurring. The capturing of the data by the measurement device allows for the vehicle owner to find solutions and fixes to the problems as they occur.
Claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar and would be rejected for the same rationale as recited above.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Agrwal, Witliff, and Jung teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Agrawal, Witliff, and Jung does not teach , further comprising capturing an image of the vehicle with a camera of the vehicle while the audible issue is occurring to generate an image file, and the posting comprises posting the image file to the online forum.
However, Schweickhardt teaches “, further comprising capturing an image of the vehicle with a camera of the vehicle while the audible issue is occurring to generate an image file, and the posting comprises posting the image file to the online forum.” (Col. 11, lines 31-45; teach a vehicle system capturing a image of a vehicle subregion. Col. 11, lines 53-53 teaches uploading the image to a web server)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Agrawal, Witliff, and Jung with Schweickhardt; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to vehicle repair systems and methods for carrying out these repairs. As Schweickhardt teaches in Col. 2, lines 63-67; and Col. 3, lines 1-13; the use of a system like this allows the mechanic to determine that there is an issue in a vehicle. Capturing and recording the data of the vehicle allows the system to save an issue as it occurs. Capturing images, in addition to sound, allow a mechanic to watch the vehicle in operation and determine more information about the issue. This allows for quicker and better repairs.
Claims 10 and 17 are substantially similar and would be rejected for the same rationale as recited above.
Regarding claim 4, Agrawal teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises logging diagnostic data of the subsystem of the vehicle within a data log while the issue is occurring, ([0018] teaches the system also capturing diagnostic information from the vehicle and time matching it to the sound recording) and
Agrawal does not teach the posting further comprises posting the data log to the online forum.
However, Witliff teaches “the posting further comprises posting the data log to the online forum.” (Col. 6, lines 48-59; teaches the system sending the data collected by the vehicle system to the remote webservice)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Agrawal with Witliff; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to vehicle malfunction detection and systems designed to allow for easier opportunities to fix these issues. As Witliff teaches in Col. 1, lines 45-56; sometimes a vehicle owner or technician may lack the experience necessary to fix an issue present. Even though they have been able to capture the data of what’s wrong and may even understand the issue, finding the solution can be too much. By providing a system that can connect users of an online service the system can match an experienced technician/user with the vehicle owner/technician and provide the expertise needed to fix the issues present.
Claims 11 and 18 are substantially similar and would be rejected for the same rationale as recited above.
Regarding claim 6, Agrawal teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the automatically triggering comprises automatically recording audio of the audible issue for a predetermined amount of time and the generating the package comprises generating the audio file with the audio of the audible issue for the predetermined amount of time. ([0018] teaches the system recording the audible issue for a certain amount of time, i.e. the “time out” amount. The system then uses this as the audio file)
Claims 13 and 20 are substantially similar and would be rejected for the same rationale as recited above.
Regarding claim 21, Agrawal teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the audio recording and the CAN messages are captured of a same detected issue of the subsystem ([0018] teaches that the captured audio data and additional subsystem data is captured for the same issue over time from the vehicle systems) and
Agrawal does not teach are posted together to the online forum.
However, Witliff teaches “are posted together to the online forum.” (Col. 6, lines 48-59; teaches the system sending the data collected by the vehicle system to the remote webservice)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Agrawal with Witliff; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to vehicle malfunction detection and systems designed to allow for easier opportunities to fix these issues. As Witliff teaches in Col. 1, lines 45-56; sometimes a vehicle owner or technician may lack the experience necessary to fix an issue present. Even though they have been able to capture the data of what’s wrong and may even understand the issue, finding the solution can be too much. By providing a system that can connect users of an online service the system can match an experienced technician/user with the vehicle owner/technician and provide the expertise needed to fix the issues present.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal, Witliff, Jung, and Schweickhardt in view of Huynh (US Pat 12,112,587).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Agrawal, Witliff, Schweickhardt, and Jung teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Agrawal, Witliff, Schweickhardt, and Jung does not teach wherein the method further comprises selecting the remote mechanic from among a plurality of remote mechanics based on execution of an artificial intelligence (AI) model.
However, Huynh teaches “wherein the method further comprises selecting the remote mechanic from among a plurality of remote mechanics based on execution of an artificial intelligence (AI) model.” (Col. 13 lines 34-60; teach the use of an AI model to perform the functions identified. This includes establishing connections between the vehicle device and an external device, i.e. remote terminal. The AI can connect to the external device(s) over a series of connections and can diagnose and/or support vehicle repair functions)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Agrawal, Witliff, Schweickhardt, and Jung with Huynh; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the capturing of vehicle data for repair systems. As taught by Huynh in Col. 13, lines 61-67 and Col. 14, lines 1-17; the use of the AI can streamline systems and ensure faster connections. The AI can also diagnose the issues earlier which allows for the system to determine the correct remote technician to connect to and ensure that the vehicle does not waste time connecting to unnecessary remote techs that cannot help the current issue.
Claims 12 and 19 are substantially similar and would be rejected for the same rationale as recited above.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal, Witliff, Jung, Schweickhardt in view of Majerus (US PG Pub 2022/0207924).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Agrawal, Witliff, Schweickhardt, and Jung teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Agrawal, Witliff, Schweickhardt, and Jung does not teach capturing at least one of an audio input and text input from an occupant of the vehicle, and the posting further comprises posting the one or more of the audio input and the text input to the online forum.
However, Majerus teaches “capturing at least one of an audio input and text input from an occupant of the vehicle, and the posting further comprises posting the one or more of the audio input and the text input to the online forum.” ([0037] teaches a user “posting “ content to the forum. The act of posting vehicle data would include text/audio input form the user)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Agrawal, Witliff, Schweickhardt, and Jung with Majerus; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the capturing of vehicle data for repair systems. As Majerus teaches in [0037] the sharing of information on the forum allows other users to provide insight into how to fix the issue. This would allow for better repairs.
Claim 14 is substantially similar and would be rejected for the same rationale as recited above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (US PG Pub 2021/0335064) teaches systems and methods cause a component of a vehicle to activate. The systems and methods receive audio data generated by a microphone of the vehicle, where the audio data represents sound of the component. Based on the audio data, a condition of the vehicle or the component may be determined, and based on the condition, the vehicle may be commissioned for use or decommissioned.
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 NICHOLAS STRYKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/N.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
