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 21-41 have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-32 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the second line of claim 21, “the sale of the vehicle” poses a technical antecedent basis problem, and should be “a sale of the vehicle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 33-41 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the fourth line of claim 33, “the sale of the vehicle” poses a technical antecedent basis problem, and should be “a sale of the vehicle”. In the ninth and tenth lines of claim 33, “the handheld electronic device” lacks antecedent basis, and is presumed to be intended to refer to the “mobile communication device” of the second line. Applicant should either amend “the handheld electronic device” in the ninth and tenth lines, or else substitute “a handheld electronic device”, which has clearer support in the instant specification, for “a mobile communication device” in the second line, in which case “the mobile communication device” in claims 35 and 36 should likewise be changed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 39 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the second line of claim 39, “vehicle scan” would be clearer as “a vehicle scan” or “the vehicle scan”. (Claim 33 refers to “scheduling a scan of a vehicle” in the third and fourth lines.) Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 39 is 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 39 recites the limitation "the displayed status information" in the first and second lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, or in claim 36, from which claim 39 is stated to depend. Claim 39 is therefore treated for examination purposes as depending from claim 38, which does provide antecedent basis.
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 21-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis is performed in accordance with section 2106 of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (concerning Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). First, it is determined that the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03 (II). In the instant case, claims 21-32 are directed to a method, in the statutory category of process. Therefore, claims 21-32 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test. Claims 33-41 are directed to a non-transitory program storage means, in the statutory category of article of manufacture. Therefore, claims 33-41 are also directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test. (Step 1: YES for all claims 21-41)
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. The claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One) as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong Two). See MPEP 2106.04. First applying Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 21 recites the following abstract idea (bolded):
A method of scheduling a third-party diagnostic scan for a vehicle in connection with the sale of the vehicle, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving, at a server, a registration signal identifying tool characteristics of a third party tool;
receiving, at the server, a scan request signal to schedule a scan of a vehicle associated with a defined parameter, the scan request signal including a defined level of diagnostic specificity;
identifying the third party tool from a database of third party tools based on a match of tools characteristics with the defined parameter of the vehicle;
generating, at the server, in response to receipt of the scan request signal, a tool solicitation signal for receipt at an electronic address associated with the third party tool;
receiving, at the server, a vehicle data set from the third party tool, the vehicle data set being retrieved from the vehicle; and
analyzing the vehicle data set at the server to generate a diagnostic report including content consistent with the defined level of diagnostic specificity.
Claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea, specifically in the field of certain methods of organizing human activity, with generic computer implementation. The operations are described at a high level of abstraction, and scanning as such is not recited. (Step 2A, Prong One: Yes for claims 21-32)
Proceeding to Step 2A, Prong Two: Claim 21 does not recite any of the specific limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application, and does not otherwise apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Claim 21 recites the use of a [computer] server, but the server is described at a high level of abstraction, without details of structure, and an abstract idea does not become non-abstract merely because a computer is involved in applying it, as the Supreme Court ruled in Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank. (Step 2A, Prong Two: No for claims 21-32)
Next, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
Analyzing independent claim 21 under Step 2B, Vasquez et al. (U.S. Patent 10,430,822) discloses (column 4, lines 34-38, emphasis added), “Referring now in particular to the drawings submitted herewith the advertising and customer system 100 includes providing a server 10 that is a conventional computer server having the necessary electronics to receive, store, transmit and manipulate data.” Hence, using a server requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090,1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Hence, the multiple “receiving” steps of claim 21 require only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology.
The “identifying the third party tool” step could be performed by a human being as a matter of human judgment and evaluation, or by an appropriately programmed and essentially generic computer. The step of “generating, at the server, in response to receipt of the scan request signal, a tool solicitation signal for receipt at an electronic address” could likewise be performed by a human being as a matter of human judgment and evaluation, or by an appropriately programmed and essentially generic computer. Given the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of receiving or transmitting data over a network, generating an item of data to be transmitted and received likewise qualifies as well-understood, routine, and conventional, in the absence of any specific technology recited as being used.
Lastly, “analyzing the vehicle data at the server to generate a diagnostic report” is also recited at a high level of generality, and could be performed by a human being as a matter of human judgment and evaluation, or by an appropriately programmed and essentially generic computer. The limitations of claim 21, whether considered separately or in combination, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 22, which depends from claim 21, recites that the identifying step includes identifying a data acquisition and transfer device (DAT) as the third party tool. Identifying a particular kind of device as the third party tool is not in itself technological. The limitation of claim 22, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 21, does not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 23, which depends from claim 21, recites that the defined parameter of the vehicle is a location of the vehicle; this is not in itself technological. Claim 24, which depends from claim 23, recites that the identifying step includes Identifying the third party tool from the database of third party tools based on the third party tool being located within a prescribed radius of the location of the vehicle; this is not in itself technological. The limitations of claims 23 and 24, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 21, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 25, which depends from claim 21, recites that the defined parameter of the vehicle is a vehicle communication protocol. For the defined parameter of the vehicle to be a vehicle communication protocol is not in itself technological, even if the communication protocol itself may qualify as technological. The limitation of claim 25, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 21, does not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 26, which depends from claim 21, recites that the diagnostic report generated in the analyzing step includes information regarding received diagnostic trouble codes. For a report to include particular information is not in itself technological. The limitation of claim 26, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 21, does not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 27, which depends from claim 21, recites that the diagnostic report generated in the analyzing step includes at least one predictive diagnostic assessment. For a report to include particular information, including information in the form of an assessment, is not in itself technological. The limitation of claim 27, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 21, does not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 28, which depends from claim 21, recites that the method further comprises: creating an electronic listing for sale of the vehicle on an online forum, the electronic listing being created from a template; and creating a link to the diagnostic report on the electronic listing. Dempski et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0282834) discloses (paragraph 3, emphasis added), “Many conventional electronically mediated forums allow users to post messages on specific pages dedicated to those users (e.g., a user’s individual Facebook, Myspace, or Twitter page). Other users of the forum may then view the posted message and interact with it.” Dempski further discloses (paragraph 25, emphasis added), “Techniques for posting a message to an electronically mediated forum are well known to those having ordinary skill in the art.” Hence, creating an electronic listing on an online forum must likewise be technologically well-understood, routine, and conventional. The use of a template in creating a listing need not in itself be significantly technological.
Zhang (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0325021) discloses (paragraph 4, emphasis added), “In the conventional art, the user searches for a keyword for which a hyperlink is to be created in an electronic document, and creates a hyperlink based on the keyword and contents relevant to the keyword.” Zhang further discloses (paragraph 28, emphasis added), “In the conventional art, a hyperlink is created in the following manner. A user searches for a keyword for which a hyperlink is to be created in an electronic document, and creates a hyperlink based on the keyword and contents relevant to the keyword. For example, the user selects a keyword manually, clicks the option ‘insert’ and clicks the option ‘hyperlink’ to create a hyperlink as required.” Hence, creating a link to the diagnostic report on the electronic listing requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitations of claim 28, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 21, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 29, which depends from claim 28, recites the step of creating a link on the electronic listing to purchase a repair part associated with the diagnostic report. Based on Zhang, as quoted above with regard to claim 28, creating such a link requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitation of claim 29, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claims 21 and 28, does not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 30, which depends from claim 28, recites the step of creating a link on the electronic listing to schedule a repair service associated with the diagnostic report. Based on Zhang, as quoted above with regard to claim 28, creating such a link requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitation of claim 30, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claims 21 and 28, does not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 31, which depends from claim 28, recites the step of creating a link on at least one electronic listing to purchase an extended warranty for the corresponding vehicle for sale. Based on Zhang, as quoted above with regard to claim 28, creating such a link requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. Claim 32, which depends from claim 31, recites that the terms of the extended warranty are based on the diagnostic report associated with the corresponding vehicle for sale. The terms of the extended warranty are not thereby technological in themselves. Hence, the limitations of claim 31 and 32, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claims 21 and 28, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea. (Step 2B: No for claims 21-32)
Analysis under Step 2A and Step 2B will now be applied to independent claim 33 and its dependent claims 34-41. First applying Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 33 recites the following abstract idea (bolded):
A non-transitory program storage medium on which are stored instructions executable by a processor or programmable circuit of a mobile communication device to perform operations for mobile application-based vehicle diagnostics associated with scheduling a scan of a vehicle by a third party tool for use in connection with the sale of the vehicle, the operations comprising:
receiving a tool solicitation signal from a server, the tool solicitation signal including information regarding a defined parameter of a third-party vehicle for which retrieval of diagnostic information has been requested;
displaying information related to the received tool solicitation signal on the handheld electronic device [presumed to mean the mobile communication device];
receiving user input representative of the user agreeing to retrieve the diagnostic information from the third-party vehicle; and
sending an accept signal to the server in response to receipt of the user input.
Claim 33 is directed to an abstract idea, specifically in the field of certain methods of organizing human activity, with generic computer implementation. The operations are described at a high level of abstraction, and scanning as such is not recited. (Step 2A, Prong One: Yes for claims 33-41)
Proceeding to Step 2A, Prong Two: Claim 33 does not recite any of the specific limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application, and does not otherwise apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Claim 33 recites the use of mobile communication device and a [computer] server, but the mobile communication device and the server are described at a high level of abstraction, without details of structure; and an abstract idea does not become non-abstract merely because a computer is involved in applying it, as the Supreme Court ruled in Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank. Likewise, storing instructions executable by a processor or programmable circuit of a computer (including mobile communication device) does not make an abstract idea become non-abstract. (Step 2A, Prong Two: No for claims 21-32)
Analyzing independent claim 33 under Step 2B, Avidan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0193592) discloses (paragraph 25, emphasis added), “Although not illustrated, it should be appreciated that the ecommerce server 110, the merchant computer 120, and the customer computer 130 each include conventional components such as a processor and a memory medium storing computer-readable instructions that are executable by the processor to perform various operations including those described herein. The computer-readable instructions can be stored on non-transitory computer-readable storage media of a conventional type, whether devices and/or materials.” Hence, the recited non-transitory program storage medium on which are stored instructions executable by a processor or programmable circuit of a mobile communication device requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. Su (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0393535) discloses (paragraph 94, emphasis added), “Within the system 100, such as that shown in FIG. 1, the cellular communications system is shown comprising conventional mobile communication devices or user equipment (UE) 102, 104, 105 which may be provided wireless access via at least one base station or similar wireless transmitting and/or receiving nod or point. Hence, the recited mobile communication device requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology.
Vasquez et al. (U.S. Patent 10,430,822) discloses (column 4, lines 34-38, emphasis added), “Referring now in particular to the drawings submitted herewith the advertising and customer system 100 includes providing a server 10 that is a conventional computer server having the necessary electronics to receive, store, transmit and manipulate data.” Hence, using a server requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090,1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Hence, the steps of receiving a tool solicitation signal from a server, receiving user input information, and sending an accept signal to the server require only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology.
Liu (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0005922) discloses (paragraph 4, emphasis added), “A mobile device is equipped with a display screen to display information or contents. Usually, a fair amount of power is consumed by the display screen. Sometimes, for example, the display screen may consume about 70%-80% of the total power of the mobile device. Therefore, a battery life of the mobile device is often affected by the display screen. In the conventional technology, when the mobile device needs to display a piece of information or certain contents, the entire display screen needs to be powered on.” Hence, the step of displaying information related to the received tool solicitation signal on the [mobile communication device] requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitations of claim 33, whether considered separately or in combination, do not raise the claimed storage medium to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 34, which depends from claim 33, recites that the step of displaying information related to the received tool solicitation signal includes displaying location information associated with the third-party vehicle. For a display of information to include particular information is not in itself technological. The limitation of claim 34, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 33, does not raise the claimed storage medium to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 35, which depends from claim 33, recites that the operations include displaying a button on a display of the mobile communications device, with the button being configured to receive the user input representative of the user agreeing to retrieve the diagnostic information. Baerlocher (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0311759) discloses (paragraph 127, emphasis added), “In certain embodiments, the at least one input device 1030 includes a touch-screen coupled to a touch-screen controller or other touch-sensitive display overlay to enable interaction with any images displayed on a display device (as described below). One such input device is a conventional touch-screen button panel.” Hence, displaying a button on a display of the mobile communications device, with the button being configured to receive user input, requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitations of claim 35, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 33, do not raise the claimed storage medium to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 36, which depends from claim 33, recites that the operations additionally include facilitating communication between the mobile communication device and a data acquisition and transfer (DAT) device. As set forth above with regard to claim 33, the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation of claim 36 is recited at a high level of generality. The limitation of claim 36, considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 33, does not raise the claimed storage medium to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 37, which depends from claim 36, recites that the operations further comprise relaying information between the DAT device and a remote server. As set forth above with regard to claim 33, the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation of claim 37 is recited at a high level of generality. The limitation of claim 37, considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 33 and 36, does not raise the claimed storage medium to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 38, which depends from claim 36, recites that that the operations further comprise displaying status information of the DAT device on a display of the mobile communication device. As cited above with regard to claim 33, Liu (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0005922) discloses that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional for mobile devices to display information or content (paragraph 4). Hence, displaying status information of the DAT device on a display of the mobile communication device requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. Claim 39, which depends from claim 38, recites that the displayed status information includes status information of [a or the] vehicle scan performed by the DAT device. Including particular status information does not make the display of status information significantly more than an abstract idea. The limitations of claim 38 and 39, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claims 33 and 36, do not raise the claimed storage medium to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 40, which depends from claim 33, recites that the solicitation signal includes geographic information associated with the third-party vehicle. For a signal to include particular information is not in itself technological. The limitation of claim 40, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 33, does not raise the claimed storage medium to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 41, which depends from claim 33, recites that the solicitation signal includes year, make, and model information of the third-party vehicle. For a signal to include particular information is not in itself technological. The limitation of claim 41, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 33, does not raise the claimed storage medium to significantly more than an abstract idea.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 21, 23, 25, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merg et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0184745) in view of Wittliff (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0313771), Sterling et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0041855), and Xiao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0014318). As per claim 21, Merg et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0184745) discloses a database of third party tools with tool characteristics (paragraph 69, emphasis added), “A technician identifier for the technician may be used to locate a technician profile describing registered vehicle scan tools and corresponding scan tool capacities.” Merg further discloses (paragraph 147, emphasis added), “A server may store or otherwise have access to one or more user profiles (e.g., technician profiles or shop profiles) describing previously registered vehicle scan tools in order to identify scan tools capable of performing contextually relevant scan tool functionality.” This is relevant to tool characteristics of a database of third party tools. Merg does not expressly disclose receiving, at a server, a registration signal identifying tool characteristics of a third party tool, but Merg discloses a server receiving data, the server being shown in Figure 8, and Merg disclosing in paragraph 16, emphasis added, “FIG. 8 is a block diagram of an example server.” Merg discloses (paragraph 249, emphasis added), “EEE 24 is a system, comprising: a computing device; at least one vehicle scan tool; and a server configured to: receive, from the computing device, (i) a user identifier, (ii) a vehicle identifier for a vehicle, and (iii) contextual information related to vehicle service content currently displayed on the computing device”. Further, Wittliff (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0313771) teaches (paragraph 38, emphasis added), “The shop owner or user can register the diagnostic tool 100 with the location server 310 so that the diagnostic tool can be located when desired. Each diagnostic tool 100 is assigned identification information, such as a device identification number that is used to register the diagnostic tool 100 with the location server 310.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to receive, at a server, a registration signal identifying tool characteristics of a third party tool, for at least the obvious advantage of acquiring information to “identify scan tools capable of performing contextually relevant scan tool functionality”, as set forth in Merg.
Merg discloses vehicles being associated with defined parameters (paragraph 58, emphasis added), “As an example, a particular vehicle identifier can comprise indicators of characteristics of the vehicle such as when the vehicle was built (e.g., a vehicle model year), who built the vehicle (i.e., vehicle manufacturer)), marketing names associated with vehicle (e.g., a vehicle model name, or more simply ‘model’), and features of the vehicle (e.g., an engine type). Merg does not disclose receiving, at the server, a scan request signal to schedule a scan of a vehicle associated with a defined parameter, the scan request signal including a defined level of diagnostic specificity, although Merg discloses a server receiving data (see above). However, Sterling teaches scheduling appointments for scanning a vehicle (paragraph 8, emphasis added), “The traditional way to do preventative maintenance for internal combustion engines is to schedule an appointment and leave their vehicle at a service garage for an extended time for a the [sic] diagnostic and maintenance check via a standardized On Board Diagnostics or OBDII data cable.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to receive, at the server, a scan request signal to schedule a scan of a vehicle associated with a defined parameter, for at least the obvious advantage of arranging preventative maintenance for a vehicle.
Moreover, Merg discloses providing diagnostic information (paragraph 60, emphasis added), “An ECU [presumably electronic control unit] can control various aspects of vehicle operation or components within a vehicle. For example, the ECU can include a powertrain (PT) system ECU, an engine control module (ECM) ECU, a supplemental inflatable restraint (SIR) system (i.e., an air bag system) ECU, an entertainment system ECU, or some other ECU. The ECU can receive inputs (e.g., a sensor input), control output devices (e.g., a solenoid), generate a vehicle data message (VDM) (such as a VDM based on a received input or a controlled output), and set a diagnostic trouble code (DTC) as being active or history for a detected fault or failure condition within a vehicle.” Further in paragraph 178, emphasis added (note that VCT is “vehicle communications transceiver” and VDM is “vehicle data message”): “In some implementations, a transmitter of the VCT 203 can transmit a VDM to a vehicle. The VDM transmitted to the vehicle can include a request for diagnostic information (such as a DTC) from an ECU in the vehicle. In those implementations, the receiver of the VCT 203 can receive a VDM transmitted by the vehicle. The VDM received by the receiver of the VCT 203 can include diagnostic information transmitted by an ECU in the vehicle. A VDM can include a component identifier, such as an identifier of the ECU that transmits the VDM. The VDM can include data indicative of a DCT set by the ECU. The processor can select data from within the VDM and cause the selected data to be displayed on the display 208.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority for the scan request signal to include a defined level of diagnostic specificity, for such obvious advantages as enabling scanning equipment to be selected or put to use based on information regarding one or more faults or failures condition within a vehicle.
Merg does not disclose identifying the third party tool from a database of third party tools based on a match of tools characteristics with the defined parameter of the vehicle. However, Xiao teaches identifying a tool (in the form of a diagnostic server) based on a match of tools characteristics with a defined parameter of a vehicle (paragraph 89, emphasis added), “The identifier information may include, but is not limited to: a diagnostic server identifier, a vehicle identifier, and a diagnostic software identifier. . . . The ‘vehicle identifier’ may be any piece of information that may represent an attribute of the to-be-diagnosed vehicle. For example, the vehicle identifier may be any one or more of a VIN code, a manufacturer, a series, and a model. The management server may match a corresponding diagnostic server for the vehicle based on received the vehicle identifier [sic], for example, a diagnostic server corresponding to a brand ‘Benz’ may be matched based on a vehicle identifier of ‘Benz Automobile’, and one or more kinds of diagnostic servers for diagnosing the Benz Automobile are installed in the diagnostic server. . . . Therefore, the management server may look for a diagnostic server including the diagnostic software identifier according to the received diagnostic software identifier, thereby determining a diagnostic server to be requested by the terminal.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to identify the third party tool from a database of third party tools based on a match of tools characteristics with the defined parameter of the vehicle, for the obvious advantage of having the vehicle scanned or otherwise used by a tool equipped to do the requisite work.
Xiao further teaches (paragraphs 94 and 95, emphasis added), “[0094] In this embodiment, each diagnostic server is configured with a unique piece of address information, and a communication connection may be established between the terminal and the corresponding diagnostic server through a certain piece of address information. In particular, the address information may be an IP address of a diagnostic server. [0095] In this embodiment, address information of all diagnostic servers may be pre-recorded in the management server. Therefore, when the management server determines a diagnostic server to be requested by a terminal, address information of the diagnostic server may be directly sent to the terminal, improving efficiency of establishing a communication connection between the terminal and the diagnostic server requested by the terminal.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to generate, at the server, in response to receipt of the scan request signal, a tool solicitation signal for receipt at an electronic address associated with the third party tool, for at least the obvious advantage of arranging for vehicle scanning or other vehicle services to be performed by the appropriate tool.
Merg discloses vehicle data, including data sets, being received from a vehicle by a scan tool (paragraph 89, emphasis added), “In some cases, one or more messages indicating the results of tests may subsequently be received by the scan tool from the vehicle. In further examples, vehicle service functions performed using a vehicle scan tool may include retrieving data from the vehicle. Such data may include parameter identifier (PID) values.” Merg likewise discloses receiving, at a server, vehicle data from a tool (paragraph 249, emphasis added), “EEE 24 is a system, comprising: a computing device; at least one vehicle scan tool; and a server configured to: receive, from the computing device, (i) a user identifier, (ii) a vehicle identifier for a vehicle, and (iii) contextual information related to vehicle service content currently displayed on the computing device”. Merg discloses that the server includes “memory 52” (Figure 8; paragraphs 89 and 90); Merg then discloses (paragraph 94, emphasis added), “The memory 52 stores computer-readable data, such as the CRPI 60, an index 61, mapping data 62, repair order (RO) data 63, diagnostic session data (DSD) 64, a component hierarchy 65, original OEM content 66, supplemented OEM content 67, technician profile 68, and/or shop profile 69. Further, Merg discloses (paragraph 96, emphasis added), “The DSD 64 can comprise data the server 2 can use to determine an operating state of the vehicle scan tool 4. The data the server 2 uses to determine an operating state of the vehicle scan tool 4 can include a vehicle identifier, data indicating an elapsed time since the server last received a communication from the vehicle scan tool 4, data indicating the most recent type of scan tool function transmitted to the vehicle scan tool 4, and/or data indicating a scan tool function has been completed on a particular vehicle.” It would therefore have been at least obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to receive, at the server, a vehicle data set from the third party tool, the vehicle data set being retrieved from the vehicle, as following from the disclosure of Merg, and for the obvious advantage of making relevant information available to the server (e.g., relevant for commercial purposes, or for tracking how many vehicles of what kind had which problems).
Merg does not disclose analyzing the vehicle data set at the server to generate a diagnostic report, but Sterling teaches analyzing data to generate a diagnostic report including relevant content appropriate to the situation (paragraph 21, emphasis added), “The vehicle diagnostics facility 31 is connected to a diagnostic report unit 33 that can print a report detailing the state of the vehicle (motor, battery, subsystems, fault messages saved in the vehicle microprocessor memory, etc.). The unit 33 is connected to the charging station billing system 36, so that the report may be sold to the vehicle operator or given to the operator as a value-added service to encourage return business.” Sterling further teaches (paragraph 23, emphasis added), “Thereafter, in step 44, the charging system performs an initial vehicle diagnostic analysis to determine, among other parameters, the state of charge of the battery 22, and to predict the amount of time required to recharge the battery fully. This step is important in apprising the vehicle owner of the expected service time, and to enable the operator of the charging station to plan for space utilization and power consumption within the station.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to analyze the vehicle data set at the server to generate a diagnostic report including content consistent with the defined level of diagnostic specificity, for at least the obvious advantages, as per Sterling, of profiting from the sale of the diagnostic report to the vehicle operator or giving the report to the operator as a value-added service to encourage return business.
As per claim 23, Sterling teaches (paragraph 7, emphasis added), “In accordance with another embodiment of the present invention, a method of operating a diagnostic tool for a vehicle includes connecting the diagnostic tool to the vehicle to conduct a diagnostic test, communicating wirelessly with a remote computing device a location of the vehicle, and alerting a user of the diagnostic tool when a condition based on the location or speed is exceeded.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority for the defined parameter of the vehicle to be a location of the vehicle, for at least such obvious advantages as basing a diagnostic report of the vehicle in part on information regarding driving the vehicle at excessive speed or in an improper location (e.g., on an unpaved road that could damage the tires and/or suspension).
As per claim 25, Merg discloses multiple communication protocols used with vehicles (paragraph 205, emphasis added), “The vehicle scan tool 200 may be configured to communicate with a vehicle using a vehicle communication link. As an example, the vehicle communication link in a vehicle can include one or more conductors for carrying vehicle data messages in accordance with a VDM protocol. A VDM protocol can include a Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)® J1850 (PWM or VPW) VDM protocol, an (SAE)® J1939 VDM protocol based on the SAE J1939_201808 serial control and communications heavy duty vehicle network—top level document, and/or any other core J1939 standard, an International Order of Standardization (ISO)® 15764-4 controller area network (CAN) VDM protocol, an (ISO)® 9141-2 K-Line VDM protocol, an (ISO)® 14230-4 KWP2000 K-Line VDM protocol, an (ISO)® 17458 (e.g., parts 1-5) FlexRay VDM protocol, an (ISO)® 17987 local interconnect network (LIN) VDM protocol,” and further protocols listed in paragraph 205. Wittliff discloses (paragraph 31, emphasis added), “Different vehicle manufacturers (or even within the same manufacture) require the scan tool to operate with different programs and communication protocols. The scan tool may determine whether it is operating the correct software or program for a particular vehicle by comparing the vehicle type with the program currently running on the scan tool. The vehicle type may be inputted into the scan tool through the user interface 106 in a manner such as, for example, scanning a bar coded VIN number located on the vehicle to be serviced. From the vehicle information, the scan tool can then determine whether it is presently running the necessary program to service the vehicle.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority for the defined parameter of the vehicle to be a vehicle communication protocol, for the obvious advantage of readily enabling a scan tool to use the appropriate program for interacting with the vehicle based on that communication protocol.
As per claim 26, Merg discloses diagnostic trouble codes (paragraph 60, emphasis added), “An ECU [presumably electronic control unit] can control various aspects of vehicle operation or components within a vehicle. For example, the ECU can include a powertrain (PT) system ECU, an engine control module (ECM) ECU, a supplemental inflatable restraint (SIR) system (i.e., an air bag system) ECU, an entertainment system ECU, or some other ECU. The ECU can receive inputs (e.g., a sensor input), control output devices (e.g., a solenoid), generate a vehicle data message (VDM) (such as a VDM based on a received input or a controlled output), and set a diagnostic trouble code (DTC) as being active or history for a detected fault or failure condition within a vehicle.” Further in paragraph 178, emphasis added (note that VCT is “vehicle communications transceiver” and VDM is “vehicle data message”): “In some implementations, a transmitter of the VCT 203 can transmit a VDM to a vehicle. The VDM transmitted to the vehicle can include a request for diagnostic information (such as a DTC) from an ECU in the vehicle. In those implementations, the receiver of the VCT 203 can receive a VDM transmitted by the vehicle. The VDM received by the receiver of the VCT 203 can include diagnostic information transmitted by an ECU in the vehicle. A VDM can include a component identifier, such as an identifier of the ECU that transmits the VDM. The VDM can include data indicative of a DCT set by the ECU. The processor can select data from within the VDM and cause the selected data to be displayed on the display 208.” Also, Sterling teaches “a report detailing the state of the vehicle (motor, battery, subsystems, fault messages saved in the vehicle microprocessor memory, etc.)” in paragraph 21 (emphasis added). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority for the diagnostic report generated in the analyzing step to include information regarding received diagnostic trouble codes, for the obvious advantage of having the diagnostic report include relevant information with reference to codes in use for describing faults or failure conditions in vehicles.
As per claim 27, Sterling teaches (paragraph 23, emphasis added), “Thereafter, in step 44, the charging system performs an initial vehicle diagnostic analysis to determine, among other parameters, the state of charge of the battery 22, and to predict the amount of time required to recharge the battery fully. This step is important in apprising the vehicle owner of the expected service time, and to enable the operator of the charging station to plan for space utilization and power consumption within the station.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority for the diagnostic report generated in the analyzing step to include at least one predictive diagnostic assessment, for at least the stated advantage of apprising the vehicle owner of the expected service time, and for such obvious advantages as apprising the vehicle owner of what further problems can be expected, and what preventative actions may be advisable.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merg et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0184745), Wittliff (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0313771), Sterling et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0041855), and Xiao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0014318) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0188329). Merg does not use the words “data acquisition and transfer device (DAT)”. However, Merg discloses a scan tool acquiring data from a vehicle (paragraph 96, emphasis added), “In order to service a vehicle, a technician may use a vehicle scan tool, which is a computing device configured to communicate with the vehicle to perform one or more vehicle service functions on the vehicle. These communications may involve sending and/or receiving vehicle data messages to a vehicle via a wired or wireless connection with the vehicle. Example vehicle service functions that may be performed on a vehicle using a vehicle scan tool include functional tests, component tests, and reset procedures. These vehicle service functions may involve sending one or more messages to the vehicle to test components or systems on the vehicle. In some cases, one or more messages indicating the results of tests may subsequently be received by the scan tool from the vehicle. In further examples, vehicle service functions performed using a vehicle scan tool may include retrieving data from the vehicle. Such data may include parameter identifier (PID) values.” Thus, the scan tool is at least a data acquisition device, and paragraph 249 of Merg (quoted from with regard to claim 21 above).
Chen teaches a data acquisition and transfer (DAT) device which may be used to transfer [communicate] data (paragraph 13, emphasis added), “The data acquisition and transfer device may also be used to retrieve diagnostic information bearing on the identity or condition of a vehicle, e.g. identifying the vehicle make/model/year/engine, the current mileage of the vehicle, the presence of digital trouble codes (DTCs), and other diagnostic data, which may then also be communicated to the processor. As noted above, a mobile device, that does not connect to the vehicle diagnostic port, may also be used to derive usage information, e.g. based on location, driving habits, etc.” Chen further teaches communication from the data acquisition and transfer device (DAT), which may be a scan tool, to another device or devices (paragraph 17, emphasis added), “As noted above, information identifying the VIN and the current mileage of the vehicle may be retrieved from the vehicle’s electric control unit (ECT) by means of a scan tool, dongle, or other data acquisition and transfer device that is connectable to the vehicle diagnostic port to collect the desired data. After the desired data is collected, the data acquisition and transfer device may be removed from the diagnostic port and put in electrical communication with a personal computer (PC), smartphone, PDA, or other Internet communicable device to transfer the information to the associated processor.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority for the identifying step to identify a data acquisition and transfer device (DAT) as the third party tool, for at least the obvious advantage of having a scan tool acquire data from at least a vehicle, and transfer the data to another device where the data may be needed or useful to know.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merg et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0184745), Wittliff (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0313771), Sterling et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0041855), and Xiao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0014318) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Adderly et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0365139). Merg does not disclose that the identifying step includes identifying the third party tool from the database of third party tools based on the third party tool being within a prescribed radius of the location of the vehicle. However, Adderly teaches identifying vehicle service locations (presumably of third parties, and likely to have requisite tools) located within a radius of the (current or expected) location of a vehicle (Abstract, emphasis added), “While a user is driving a vehicle between first and second locations, upon receiving a fault condition signal from the OBD system, the processor will; automatically identify, and transmit information, to multiple vehicle service locations within a limited distance radius of the path towards the second location, receive service responses, receive a selection by the user of at least two of the vehicle service locations and an order of preference thereof; send a service request with payment information to the first selected vehicle service location; and receive a communication from the first vehicle service location either accepting or rejecting the request.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority for the identifying step to include identifying the third party tool from the database of third party tools based on the third party tool being within a prescribed radius of the location of the vehicle, for at least the obvious advantage of obtaining desired vehicle services from a third party tool (and perhaps associated repair or other equipment and technicians) conveniently located with respect to the vehicle.
Claims 28, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merg et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0184745), Wittliff (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0313771), Sterling et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0041855), and Xiao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0014318) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Nelson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0085208). As per claim 28, Merg does not disclose creating an electronic listing for sale of the vehicle in an online forum, the electronic listing being created from a template, and creating a link to the diagnostic report on the electronic listing. Nelson teaches creating an electronic listing for sale of a vehicle on an online forum (paragraph 73, emphasis added), “An integrated website listing for the vehicle offered for sale with the website identification on the for sale sign. This website can serve as an electronic embodiment of an information exchange as well as identifying and integrating the various products, services, and listings described above. The website can be a nationally or internationally recognized listing service for listings of private party (FSBO) For Sale By Owner vehicles.” Nelson further teaches enabling the electronic listing to be created from a template (paragraph 86, emphasis added), “Website creation support. The For-Sale-Kit can enable a customer to download a web based tool kit to develop a site for display of the listed vehicle with various descriptions of the car listed. It is possible to offer the customer a web template kit to create their own web listing and a listing that can be linked or exported to other listing companies such as eBayTM.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to create an electronic listing for sale of the vehicle in an online forum, the electronic listing being created from a template, for such obvious advantages as profiting from payment for services provided to the vehicle seller (perhaps including the providing of the template) and/or fees from the sale of a vehicle via the online forum.
Merg does, however, disclose creating links/hyperlinks (paragraph 86, emphasis added), “Next, block 43 includes modifying the textual vehicle service to include a selectable link at the location of the associated text. . . . In some examples, text within OEM content may be directly converted into a selectable link (e.g., a hyperlink). In further examples, selectable links may be inserted proximate to or on top of associated text within the OEM content.” Sterling teaches analyzing data to generate a diagnostic report including relevant content appropriate to the situation (paragraph 21, quoted above in the rejection of claim 21). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to create a link to the diagnostic report on the electronic listing, for such obvious advantages as enabling a potential buyer to discover that a vehicle offered for sale is in relatively good condition, or at least to be confident of just what the faults and failures are.
As per claim 31, Nelson further teaches warranties, apparently extended warranties (paragraph 76, emphasis added), “Warranties including links to selected companies offering Extended Service Contracts with whom the sign supplier has a relationship. . . . This can include a discussion of the marketing advantages to the Seller of offering a ‘warranty’.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to create a link on at least one electronic listing to purchase an extended warranty for the corresponding vehicle for sale, for at least the obvious and strongly implied advantage of enjoying the marketing advantages to the Seller of offering a warranty.
As per claim 32, terms of a warranty can normally be expected to depend on the condition of the merchandise to which the warranty applies, and to some degree inherently depend on the nature and condition of the merchandise. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority for the terms of the extended warranty to be based on the diagnostic report associated with the corresponding vehicle for sale, for at least the obvious advantage of having the terms, including price, of the warranty reflect the condition of the corresponding vehicle for sale and the probabilities of having to pay for repairs and/or replacement in accordance with the warranty.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merg et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0184745), Wittliff (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0313771), Sterling et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0041855), Xiao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0014318), and Nelson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0085208) as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Conroy (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0018982). Merg and Nelson do not disclose creating a link on the electronic listing to purchase a repair part associated with the diagnostic report, but Conroy teaches a link or links for purchasing repair parts online (paragraph 89, emphasis added), “Third, advertising space is reserved for affiliate and sponsor advertising. Consumers are provided with research material and direct links to affiliate and sponsor web sites so that they can research repair options and purchase repair and performance parts online. Commissions are charged.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to create a link on the electronic listing to purchase a repair part associated with the diagnostic report, for at least the obvious and implied advantages of readily enabling consumers to obtain repair parts, and profiting from the commissions charged on such purchases.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merg et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0184745), Wittliff (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0313771), Sterling et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0041855), Xiao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0014318), and Nelson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0085208) as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Kent et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0052531). Merg and Nelson do not disclose creating a link on the electronic listing to schedule a repair service associated with the diagnostic report, but Kent teaches providing a link for making an appointment with a repair service, which involves scheduling (paragraph 82, emphasis added), “Also, the main page 260 can allow the owner to make a service, maintenance or repair appointment. For example, the main page 260 can provide a link 360 for making the appointment. Hence, the backend system can receive requests for and setup owner’s appointment with a service/repair shop, for a particular date and time of the appointment and reason.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to create a link on the electronic listing to schedule a repair service associated with the diagnostic report, for at least the obvious advantage of readily arranging needed repairs for a vehicle, in particular, repairs indicated by the diagnostic report as needed.
Claims 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merg et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0184745) in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0188329) and Zinchenko et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0093123). As per claim 33, Merg discloses a non-transitory storage medium on which are stored instructions executable by a processor or programmable circuit of a computer device to perform operations (paragraph 5, emphasis added), “Viewed from a further aspect, an example embodiment takes the form of a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored therein instructions executable by one or more processors to cause a computing system to perform functions.” Merg further teaches that computer devices can be mobile communication devices (paragraph 64, emphasis added), “In some examples, the computing device is a fixed computer workstation at a repair shop, a mobile computing device such as a touchpad device or smartphone, a laptop computer, or a different type of computing device at a vehicle repair shop.” Merg likewise teaches (paragraph 211, emphasis added), “a small-form factor portable (i.e., mobile) electronic device such as a smartphone (e.g., an IPHONE® smartphone from Apple Inc. of Cupertino, Calif., or a Galaxy S® smartphone from Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Of Maetan-Dong, Yeong-tong-Gu Suwon-Si, Gyeonggi-Do, Republic of Korea) . . . or a wearable computing device (e.g., a wireless web-watch device or a personal headset device).”
Merg et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0184745) further discloses receiving a tool solicitation signal from a server (paragraph 154, emphasis added), “Block 181 includes receiving, at a vehicle scan tool, a request for automated vehicle scan tool initialization. The request includes a function identifier for a vehicle scan tool function and a vehicle identifier for a vehicle. The request may also include additional information, such as a vehicle system and/or component identifier. The vehicle scan tool is configured to display at least one navigable menu that allows for selection from a plurality of vehicle scan tool functions, including at least the vehicle scan tool function.” Merg also discloses in paragraph 155, emphasis added: “In some examples, the request may be received by the vehicle scan tool from a server, such as server 2 of FIG. 1.” Merg does not disclose that the tool solicitation signal includes information regarding a defined parameter of a third-party vehicle for which retrieval of diagnostic information has been requested, but Merg does disclose such parameters (paragraph 58, emphasis added), “As an example, a particular vehicle identifier can comprise indicators of characteristics of the vehicle such as when the vehicle was built (e.g., a vehicle model year), who built the vehicle (i.e., vehicle manufacturer)), marketing names associated with vehicle (e.g., a vehicle model name, or more simply ‘model’), and features of the vehicle (e.g., an engine type). Further, Chen teaches defined parameters of a vehicle in more detail (paragraph 13, emphasis added), “The data acquisition and transfer device may also be used to retrieve diagnostic information bearing on the identity or condition of a vehicle, e.g. identifying the vehicle make/model/year/engine, the current mileage of the vehicle, the presence of digital trouble codes (DTCs), and other diagnostic data, which may then also be communicated to the processor. As noted above, a mobile device, that does not connect to the vehicle diagnostic port, may also be used to derive usage information, e.g. based on location, driving habits, etc.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority for the tool solicitation signal to include information regarding a defined parameter of a third-party vehicle for which retrieval of diagnostic information has been requested, for such obvious advantages of obtaining relevant defined information concerning a vehicle, including such information as the vehicle make/model/year/engine and digital trouble codes.
Merg does not disclose that the vehicle is a third-party vehicle, but Zinchenko et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0093123) teaches a third-party vehicle (paragraph 10, emphasis added), “A different vehicle of the same type may, for example, be a vehicle from a vehicle fleet of the manufacturer or a different corresponding test vehicle.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority for the vehicle to be a third-party vehicle, for such obvious advantages as applying information regarding third-party vehicles in determining what the faults of a particular vehicle are likely to be (see paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 of Zinchenko).
Merg does not disclose that the operations are performed in connection with a sale of the vehicle, but Chen teaches interest in purchasing a vehicle (paragraph 20, emphasis added), “Accordingly, the present invention allows a person interested in potentially purchasing a used vehicle to access information indicating the total future repair cost for maintaining a vehicle over a defined period of time or mileage, by simply providing two pieces of information, i.e. vehicle identifying information and current mileage.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority for the operations to be performed in connection with a sale of the vehicle, for at least the stated advantage of enabling a purchaser or potential purchaser to access information indicating the total future repair cost for maintaining a vehicle, and, by implication, taking this into consideration in deciding whether to buy a vehicle.
Merg discloses displaying information related to a received tool solicitation on a computer (paragraph 126, emphasis added), “The contextual information 125 may be OEM content or a different type of textual and/or non-textual vehicle service information displayed on the primary device 120.” Anent this, Merg further discloses (paragraph 226, emphasis added), “EEE 1 is a method comprising: receiving, from a computing device, (i) a user identifier, (ii) a vehicle identifier, and (iii) contextual information related to vehicle service content currently displayed on the computing device; based on the contextual information, determining a vehicle scan tool function to perform on the vehicle; identifying a vehicle scan tool associated with the user identifier, wherein the vehicle scan tool is configured to display at least one navigable menu to select from a plurality of vehicle scan tool functions that include the vehicle scan tool function and to select from a plurality of vehicle identifiers that includes the vehicle identifier; causing a selectable vehicle scan tool initialization option to be displayed on the computing device; receiving, from the computing device, a selection of the selectable vehicle scan tool initialization option; and in response to receiving the selection, providing instructions to select the vehicle scan tool function and the vehicle identifier from the at least one navigable menu on the vehicle scan tool to initialize the vehicle scan tool to perform the vehicle scan tool function on the vehicle.” As set forth above, Merg teaches that computer devices can be mobile communication devices; hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to display information related to a received tool solicitation signal on the mobile communication device, for the obvious advantage of making such information available to a person whose computing and communication device is a mobile communication device.
Merg does not disclose receiving user input representative of the user agreeing to retrieve the diagnostic information from the third-party vehicle, and sending an accept signal to the server. However, Zinchenko teaches consent of a user for a remote retrieval of vehicle diagnostic information (paragraph 10, emphasis added), “In at least one disclosed embodiment of the diagnostic method, vehicle diagnostic information is additionally retrieved from a vehicle diagnostic system of one of the vehicles from the group of vehicles depending on the generated diagnostic information. The vehicle from which the vehicle diagnostic information is retrieved may, for example, be the vehicle which the user who input the data into the social medium is currently using, or a vehicle of the same type. In the former case, a consent of the user for a remote retrieval of his vehicle diagnostic information is understandably required.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to receive user input representative of the user agreeing to retrieve the diagnostic information from the third-party vehicle, and send an accept signal to the server, for the obvious advantage of obtaining and making available the consent of a user for a remote retrieval of vehicle diagnostic information, assuring that retrieving the diagnostic information is authorized and legitimate.
As per claim 35, Merg discloses displaying a button on a display (paragraph 128, emphasis added), “The user input may take the form of a click, a button press, an audio input, or a different type of confirmation input.” Merg further discloses (paragraph 192, emphasis added), “For instance, the GUI can show user-selectable controls via which a user can enter an input pertaining to use of the vehicle scan tool 200. The input can represent a selection and/or information. As an example, a user-selectable control can include a graphical button, such as a rectangle surrounding text representative of a selection or information associated with the button.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to display a button on a display of the mobile communication device, with the button being configured to receive the user input representative of the user agreeing to retrieve the diagnostic information, for the obvious advantage of enabling the user agreement to be given an received using a standard, familiar means of presentation common on computing devices.
As per claim 36, Merg does not disclose that the operations additionally include facilitating communication between the mobile communication device and a data acquisition and transfer (DAT) device. However, Chen teaches a data acquisition and transfer (DAT) device which may be used to communicate data, and also teaches a mobile device (paragraph 13, emphasis added), “The data acquisition and transfer device may also be used to retrieve diagnostic information bearing on the identity or condition of a vehicle, e.g. identifying the vehicle make/model/year/engine, the current mileage of the vehicle, the presence of digital trouble codes (DTCs), and other diagnostic data, which may then also be communicated to the processor. As noted above, a mobile device, that does not connect to the vehicle diagnostic port, may also be used to derive usage information, e.g. based on location, driving habits, etc.” Chen further teaches communication between the data acquisition and transfer (DAT) device and a mobile device (paragraph 17, emphasis added), “As noted above, information identifying the VIN and the current mileage of the vehicle may be retrieved from the vehicle’s electric control unit (ECT) by means of a scan tool, dongle, or other data acquisition and transfer device that is connectable to the vehicle diagnostic port to collect the desired data. After the desired data is collected, the data acquisition and transfer device may be removed from the diagnostic port and put in electrical communication with a personal computer (PC), smartphone, PDA, or other Internet communicable device to transfer the information to the associated processor.” A smartphone is a mobile device, and a PDA (personal digital assistant) may well also qualify. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority for the operations to include facilitating communication between the mobile communication device and a data acquisition and transfer (DAT) device, for at least the obvious advantage of transferring data acquired by a data acquisition and transfer (DAT) device to the processor of or in communication with a mobile device, presumably for subsequent use of the data.
As per claim 37, Chen teaches a DAT device which may be used to communicate data, as set forth above with respect to claim 36, but does not teach relaying information between the DAT device and a remote server. However, Merg discloses a remote server (paragraph 50, emphasis added), “Example embodiments described herein include functions performed at a server, which may be located at a repair shop or may be remote from the repair shop.” Merg discloses a server receiving information from a vehicle scan tool (paragraph 130, emphasis added), “The server 121 may also receive an indication from the vehicle scan tool 122 that performance of the vehicle scan tool function on the vehicle is complete.” Chen teaches (paragraph 17, emphasis added), “As noted above, information identifying the VIN and the current mileage of the vehicle may be retrieved from the vehicle’s electric control unit (ECT) by means of a scan tool, dongle, or other data acquisition and transfer device that is connectable to the vehicle diagnostic port to collect the desired data.” Therefore, a DAT can be associated with a scan tool. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority for the operations to include relaying information between the DAT device and a remote server, for the obvious advantage of making scan tool or other information regarding a third-party vehicle available at the remote server, and thus available to an authorized user or users anywhere with Internet or other telecommunications access.
As per claim 38, Merg discloses status information of a vehicle scan to be displayed on a computing device (paragraph 245, emphasis added), “EEE 20 is the method of any one of EEE 1 to 19, further comprising: receiving a status of the vehicle scan tool function performed by the vehicle scan tool on the vehicle; and causing the status of the vehicle scan tool function to be displayed on the computing device.” Merg does not expressly disclose that the computing device is a mobile communication device, but does teach the use of mobile communication devices (see paragraphs 64 and 211, quoted above with regard to claim 33); hence, as set forth above with regard to claim 33, use of a mobile communication device would have been obvious on the date or inventor’s earliest priority. Chen further teaches communication between a DAT device which retrieves information data and a computing device which may be a mobile communication device (e.g., smartphone), thus making the data available (paragraph 17, emphasis added), “As noted above, information identifying the VIN and the current mileage of the vehicle may be retrieved from the vehicle’s electric control unit (ECT) by means of a scan tool, dongle, or other data acquisition and transfer device that is connectable to the vehicle diagnostic port to collect the desired data. After the desired data is collected, the data acquisition and transfer device may be removed from the diagnostic port and put in electrical communication with a personal computer (PC), smartphone, PDA, or other Internet communicable device to transfer the information to the associated processor.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority for the operations to further include displaying status information of the DAT device on a display of the mobile communication device, for at least the obvious advantage of making relevant information conveniently available to a remote user.
As per claim 39, Chen further teaches a scan tool or other DAT device retrieving information which includes status information of a vehicle obtained by scanning (paragraph 17, emphasis added), “As noted above, information identifying the VIN and the current mileage of the vehicle may be retrieved from the vehicle’s electric control unit (ECT) by means of a scan tool, dongle, or other data acquisition and transfer device that is connectable to the vehicle diagnostic port to collect the desired data. After the desired data is collected, the data acquisition and transfer device may be removed from the diagnostic port and put in electrical communication with a personal computer (PC), smartphone, PDA, or other Internet communicable device to transfer the information to the associated processor.” See also Chen (paragraph 13, emphasis added), “The data acquisition and transfer device may also be used to retrieve diagnostic information bearing on the identity or condition of a vehicle, e.g. identifying the vehicle make/model/year/engine, the current mileage of the vehicle, the presence of digital trouble codes (DTCs), and other diagnostic data.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority for the displayed status information to include status information of [a or the] vehicle scan performed by the DAT device, for at least the obvious advantages of providing a user with status information regarding a third-party vehicle which the user is interested in buying (as per paragraph 20 of Chen) or information of general interest to a user regarding, for example, a third-party of a particular make and model, which may be useful to the user in deciding whether to buy a similar vehicle.
As per claim 40, Merg does not disclose that the tool solicitation signal includes geographic information associated with the third-party vehicle. However Chen teaches geographic information associated with vehicles (paragraph 38, emphasis added), “The information in database 14 may also include vehicle condition information, or information concerning the geographic area (state, city, zip code, etc.) or climatic conditions in which the vehicle is primarily driven. Vehicles in different geographic areas may encounter symptoms related to the geographic area in which the vehicle is driven. For instance, vehicles driven in the northern part of the United States regularly encounter snow in the winter months. Road maintenance crews in those areas of the country regularly spread salt on the roads to mitigate slippery road conditions. Thus, as the vehicle drives over the salted roads, the undercarriage of the vehicle may be exposed to the salt, which may cause rust/corrosion, or may lead to other problematic conditions.” Further from Chen (paragraph 39, emphasis added), “However, other geographic locations offer different environmental conditions which may be problematic for the vehicle, i.e., desert areas may lead to engine overheating.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority for the tool solicitation signal to include geographic information associated with the third-party vehicle, for at least the obvious advantages of either obtaining data concerning third-party vehicles in the same geographic zone, and presumably subject to the same consequent levels of climate-related damage, as a particular vehicle, or adjusting for the presumed levels of climate-related damage related to particular geographic zones in drawing conclusions from faults or damage of third-party vehicles.
As per claim 41, Merg discloses (paragraph 126, emphasis added), “The vehicle identifier 124 may include a year, make, model, and engine of the vehicle, or a different set of identifying information.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority for the tool solicitation signal to include year, make, and model information of the third-party vehicle, for at least the obvious advantage of obtaining information regarding a third-party vehicle which is relevant to a particular user, as a result of providing information regarding a third-party vehicle of the same or a similar year, make, and model as the user’s vehicle, or else information regarding a third-party vehicle which the user is interested in buying (as per paragraph 20 of Chen, quoted above with regard to claim 33).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merg et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0184745), Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0188329), and Zinchenko et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0093123) as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Ricci (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0310788). Merg does not disclose that the step of displaying information related to the received tool solicitation signal includes displaying location information associated with the third-party vehicle, but Ricci teaches displaying location information associated with a vehicle (paragraph 565, emphasis added), “As discussed, this remote access device can be equipped with display that shows one or more operational states of the vehicle, such as speed, direction, location, images of occupants, infotainment information, or the like, such that a user using the remote access device has complete visibility as to one or more of the vehicle’s operational conditions.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority for the step of displaying information related to the received tool solicitation signal to include displaying location information associated with the third-party vehicle, for such obvious advantages as informing a user of the location of a vehicle in case the user wishes to inspect it personally, or make an offer to purchase it.
Statement Regarding IDS
The Information Disclosure Statement of June 3, 2024 lists as its third U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0078695 with “Fera et al.” as the inventors. The inventors are actually listed as McClintic et al., with Fera being one of the alii, but not the first inventor listed. Therefore, Examiner has not initialed the item on the IDS, but has considered it, and makes it of record on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Doherty et al. (U.S. Patent 7,212,893) disclose a car network analyzer. Chenn (U.S. Patent 8,032,419) discloses a method of providing diagnostic information in connection with the sale of pre-owned vehicles. Bauman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 8,370,020) disclose a method and system for communicating vehicle diagnostic data to an Internet server via Bluetooth enabled cell phone for subsequent retrieval. Selkirk et al. (U.S. Patent 8,744,668) disclose an automotive diagnostic server. Wittliff (U.S. Patent 9,030,312) discloses a diagnostic tool with global positioning system and alerts. Zinchenko et al. (U.S. Patent 9,805,523) is the patent issued on the application published as U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0093123, and used in making rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. Chen et al. (U.S. Patent 9,892,568) is the patent issued on the application published as U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0188329, and used in making rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. Adderly et al. (U.S. Patent 10,032,139) is the patent issued on the application published as U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0365108, and used in making a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. Johnson et al. (U.S. Patent 11,182,749) disclose a system and method for a vehicle service scheduler. Merg et al. (U.S. Patent 11,238,676) is the patent issued on the application published as U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0184745, and used in making rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. Xiao et al. (U.S. Patent 11,240,317) is the patent issued on the application published as U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0014318, and used in making rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103. Liu et al. (U.S. Patent 11,295,561) disclose a vehicle evaluation method, equipment, and computer readable storage system. Zoller et al. (U.S. Patent 11,366,452) disclose a method for transmitting a set of tool data of a cutting tool to a CNC machine tool. Saers et al. (U.S. Patent 11,518,396) disclose a method and control unit for facilitating diagnosis for a vehicle. Brunda et al. (U.S. Patent 11,651,628) disclose a router for a vehicle diagnostic system. Knas et al. (U.S. Patent 11,828,732) disclose an audio sensor based vehicle fault diagnostics system. Olalere (U.S. Patent 11,928,898 is the patent issued on the application published as U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0398363, and made of record on Applicant’s IDS. Chau (U.S. Patent 11,954,724) has been considered for possible double patenting (rejections not made).
Doherty et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0228560) disclose a car network analyzer. Chenn (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0016483) discloses a method of providing diagnostic information in connection with the sale of pre-owned vehicles. Bauman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0316006) disclose a method and system for communicating vehicle diagnostic data to an Internet server via Bluetooth enabled cell phone for subsequent retrieval. Wang (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0126003) discloses an intelligent correlated scanning operation for a mobile code enabler. Selkirk et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0304306) an automotive diagnostic server. Johnson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0124525) disclose a system and method for vehicle service scheduler. Saers et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0331483) disclose a method and control unit for facilitating diagnosis for a vehicle. Liu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0183178) disclose a method and control unit for facilitating diagnosis for a vehicle. Zoller et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0240162) disclose a method for transmitting a set of tool data of a cutting tool to a CNC machine tool. Brunda et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0327163) disclose a router for a vehicle diagnostic system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D ROSEN, whose telephone number is (571)272-6762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM-5:30 PM, M-F. Non-official/draft communications may be faxed to the examiner at 571-273-6762, or emailed to Nicholas.Rosen@uspto.gov (in the body of an email, please, not as an attachment).
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, Marissa Thein, can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
`/NICHOLAS D ROSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 December 18, 2025