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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 have been amended. Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 have been canceled Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are pending examination. All pending objections to the drawings and specification have been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. The 35 USC 112(d) rejection of claim 6, 13, and 20 has been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/25/2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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 17-20 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 art Agrawal (US PG Pub 2009/0177354) in view of Witliff (US Pat 9,934,629) and Jung (US Pat 11,718,310).
Agrawal teaches, “receiving one or more sound signals from a series of sensors distributed and positioned in various operational areas of a vehicle; recording the one or more sound signals in response to a command.” (Abstract).
Witliff teaches, “a local device configured to communicate with the dongle and a remote computer…allow the transfer of the diagnostic data from the local device to the remote computer and to receive data from the remote computer, such that the data received is used to perform a maintenance action on the vehicle.” (Abstract)
Jung teaches, “communication device receives a request for associated software updates of electronic control units (ECUs) arranged within a vehicle.” (Abstract).
In light of the above art the examiner would find at least the independent claims as obvious and rejected. See the section below titled, “Claim Rejections 35 USC 103,” for a detailed explanation and mapping.
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, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 20 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) and Jung (US Pat 11,718,310).
Regarding claim 1, Agrawal teaches detecting an audible issue with respect to a subsystem of a vehicle; ([0018] teaches a vehicle system experiencing an error. [0025] further teaches the system determining that the error is an audible issue)
automatically recording audio of the subsystem while the audible issue is occurring with an audio recording device installed on the vehicle 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 diagnostic data 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)
generating a package that includes the audio file and the diagnostic data ([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 establishing a network connection between an application running on the vehicle and an online forum hosted by a remote server; posting the package to the online forum; receiving, via the online forum, an indication from a remote mechanic generated after review of 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 “establishing a network connection between an application running on the vehicle and an online forum hosted by a remote server,” (Fig 3. Items 304-324; and Col. 6, lines 19-47; teaches the system connecting a local app on a local system to a remote service, the remote service allows the user to connect to a remote technician, it would be obvious to incorporate this device into the vehicle and make it integral as an obvious improvement, MPEP 2144.04.V.B. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) The system uses a device plugged into the vehicle to transmit the data to an eventual final device. The integration of such a device would be an obvious improvement) “posting the package to the 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 review of 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, the software update selected based on the review of the package” (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.
Claims 8 and 15 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 the 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 recording 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.
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal, Witliff, and Jung in view of Schweickhardt (US Pat 12,233,790).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal, Witliff, and Jung in view of Huynh (US Pat 12,112,587).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Agrwal, Witliff, and Jung teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Agrawal, Witliff, 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, 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, and Jung in view of Majerus (US PG Pub 2022/0207924).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Agrwal, Witliff, and Jung teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Agrawal, Witliff, 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, 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.
Claims 10 and 17 are 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.
Bunazawa (US PG Pub 2024/0257584) teaches a vehicle diagnostic system, a storage device stores data of a learned model and probability distribution data obtained by generating pieces of generated data by a learned model using pieces of sound data recorded using vehicles with identified types of anomalies and by obtaining, for each of the types of anomalies, a probability distribution of a loss variable. Processing circuitry is configured to execute a loss calculation process that generates the pieces of the generated data using pieces of diagnostic sound data and obtains data of a probability distribution of a loss variable in the pieces of the generated data as sample data and a diagnostic process that determines which probability distribution of an anomaly the sample data matches and outputs a diagnosis result indicating that a type of anomaly corresponding to the probability distribution determined to match the sample data has occurred in the target vehicle.
Claessens (US PG Pub 2021/0335062) teaches techniques for monitoring and predicting vehicle health are disclosed. In some examples, sensor data (e.g., audio data) may be used to create a sensor signature associated with a vehicle component. The sensor signature may be compared with one or more second sensor signatures associated with the vehicle component over the life of the vehicle component to determine changes in an operating status associated with the vehicle component. In some examples, a machine learned model may be trained to identify a vehicle component and/or and operating status of a vehicle component based on sensor data that is inputted into the machine learned model. In this way, sensor data may be input into the machine learned model and the machine learned model may output a corresponding vehicle component and/or operating status associated with the component.
Schneider (US PG Pub 2023/0206942) teaches techniques for using a trained machine learning (ML) model to detect presence of vehicle defects from audio acquired at least in part during operation of an engine of a vehicle. The techniques include using at least one computer hardware processor to perform: obtaining, via at least one communication network, a first audio recording that was acquired, using at least one acoustic sensor, at least in part during operation of the engine; processing the first audio recording using the trained ML model to detect, from the first audio recording, presence of at least one vehicle defect, the processing comprising: generating an audio waveform from the first audio recording, generating a two-dimensional (2D) representation of the audio waveform, and processing the audio waveform and the 2D representation of the audio waveform using the trained ML model to obtain output indicative of presence or absence of the at least one vehicle defect.
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
Prosecution Insights