DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 04/17/2026.
Claims 1, 3-10 are pending and examined.
Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Claims 8-10 are newly added.
Applicant is advised to remove the numerical labels from the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/17/2026 have been fully considered.
The previously issued 101 abstract idea rejection is withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment.
Per 103 rejection, the claims are rejected under new grounds of rejection with new references applied.
The examiner is available for a phone interview with applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the term “the motor vehicle” which lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, “the motor vehicle” is interpreted as “a motor vehicle”.
Claims 9-10 are rejected for being dependent on claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0173373) hereinafter Adam, in view of Leibfritz (US PGPUB 2018/0335934).
Per claim 1, Adam discloses a system comprising: a computer-based test tool that includes a test plan module with a memory that stores a plurality of component attributes and a plurality of test attributes, the test plan module being configured for determining a test-specific and component-specific test plan from the stored component attributes and the stored test attributes; a first user interface configured to receive a user input identifying at least one component attribute and of the plurality of component attributes and at least one test attribute of the plurality of test attributes, communicating with the test plan module and inputting to the test plan module the at least one identified component attribute and the at least one identified test attribute; (paragraphs [0023][0025][0027][0087]; through an interface, a user can independently define or specify an object class and its properties (component attributes) for testing, assign a test feature (test attribute), and assign a measurement object to the object; claims 1, 5; paragraph [0033][0034]; generating an object class-specific test plan (containing component attributes and test attribute); based on object class-specific test plan, define measurement points to be captured; generating (determining a test plan) a resultant test plan); a measurement point module configured to determine measurement points for the test-specific and component-specific test plan (paragraphs [0005]-[0008]; carry out (executing) the test plan, measurement points to be captured by measuring devices (sensors) can be set on the basis of the test plan, measurement values are saved).
Adam does not explicitly teach a second user interface generates a test-specific and component-specific test plan based on the at least one identified component attribute and the at least one identified test attribute input to the test plan module; the second user interface being configured to communicate with measurement devices disposed at the measurement points over a network based on the test-specific and component-specific test plan. However, Leibfritz in view of Adam suggests the above (Leibfritz, claims 1, 11, 12, 14; paragraphs [0022][0062][0065]; a test system comprised of multiple user interface screens; allowing a user to enter test parameters (i.e. component and test attributes), then generate a test plan based on the user input parameters; the components of the test systems are connected (i.e. network connection); the test plan is provided to a measurement device which is able to perform measurements based on the test plan); Adam further discloses (paragraphs [0005]-[0008]; carry out (executing) the test plan, measurement points to be captured by measuring devices (sensors) can be set on the basis of the test plan). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Adam and Leibfritz to implement multiple user interface screens for a user to input test parameters and to generate a test plan and to communicate with measurement devices at measurement points for performing measurements; as this is a designer’s choice (either using a single user interface for these functions or multiple user interfaces for these functions).
Per claim 3, Adam further suggests measuring devices removably positionable on the components at the measurement points, the measuring devices communicating wirelessly (paragraphs [0005]-[0008]; carry out (executing) the test plan, measurement points to be captured by measuring devices (sensors) can be set on the basis of the test plan, measurement values are saved; paragraph [0086]; transferring data over wireless connections). Leibfritz further discloses using multiple user interface screens for a test system, and collecting test results (claims 1, 11, 12, 14; paragraph [0022]; highly accurate and useful measurements (test results) can be done by using the test and measurement device).
Per claim 4, Adam further suggests wherein the computer-based test tool comprises a test documentation module that is configured such that test documentation is created as a function of the test-specific and component-specific test plan (paragraphs [0005]-[0008]; carry out (executing) the test plan, measurement points to be captured by measuring devices (sensors) can be set on the basis of the test plan, test results can be stored in a test result documentation which is a part of the test plan).
Per claim 5, Adam further suggests wherein the computer-based test tool is cloud-based (paragraph [0086]; transferring data over wired or wireless connections).
Per claim 6, Adam discloses a method for testing components, comprising: entering component attributes across components and test attributes across test cases via a first user interface (paragraphs [0023][0025][0027][0087]; a user can independently define or specify an object class and its properties (component attributes) for testing, assign a test feature (test attribute), and assign a measurement object to the object); identifying measurement points based on the entered component attributes and the entered test attributes; creating a test-specific and component-specific test plan based on the entered component attributes and the entered test attributes (claims 1, 5; paragraph [0033][0034]; generating an object class-specific test plan (containing component attributes); based on object class-specific test plan, define measurement points to be captured; generating a resultant test plan); communicating with measurement devices placed at the identified measurement points over a network based on the test specific and component specific test plan, providing the test results (paragraphs [0005]-[0008]; carry out (executing) the test plan, measurement points to be captured by measuring devices (sensors) can be set on the basis of the test plan, test results can be stored in a test result documentation).
Adam does not explicitly the described computing apparatus is retrieving the test-specific and component-specific test plan via a second user interface; communicating with measurement devices placed at the identified measurement points over a network via the second user interface based on the test specific and component specific test plan; providing the test results via the second user interface for retrieval via the first user interface. However, However, Leibfritz in view of Adam suggests the above (Leibfritz, claims 1, 11, 12, 14; paragraphs [0022][0062][0065]; a test system comprised of multiple user interface screens; allowing a user to enter test parameters (i.e. component and test attributes), then generate a test plan based on the user input parameters; the components of the test systems are connected (i.e. network connection); the test plan is provided to a measurement device which is able to perform measurements based on the test plan; and collect test results (measurements)); Adam further discloses (paragraphs [0005]-[0008]; carry out (executing) the test plan, measurement points to be captured by measuring devices (sensors) can be set on the basis of the test plan). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Adam and Leibfritz to implement multiple user interface screens for a user to input test parameters and to generate a test plan and to communicate with measurement devices at measurement points to collect test results; as this is a designer’s choice (either using a single user interface for these functions or multiple user interfaces for these functions).
Per claim 7, Adam further suggests placing measurement devices at the identified measurement points and transmitting measurement data from the measurement devices (paragraphs [0005]-[0008]; carry out (executing) the test plan, measurement points to be captured by measuring devices (sensors) can be set on the basis of the test plan, measurement values are saved). Leibfritz further discloses collecting test results and using multiple user interface screens in a test system (claims 1, 11, 12, 14; paragraphs [0022][0062][0065]; a test system comprised of multiple user interface screens; the test plan is provided to a measurement device which is able to perform measurements based on the test plan; and collect test results (measurements)).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam, in view of Leibfritz, and in view of Battenberg (US PGPUB 2009/0069937).
Per claim 8, Adam suggests the measurement point module is configured to determine test points at physical locations on a device (paragraph [0008]; a measurement procedure can be defined in order thereby to capture measurement points on the surface of a workpiece to be measured), but does not explicitly teach the device is a motor vehicle. Battenberg suggests performing measurements at physical locations of a motor vehicle (paragraphs [0034][0035][0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Adam, Leibfritz and Battenberg to determine test points at physical locations on a motor vehicle, this would increase the versatility and usability of Adam‘s invention.
Per claim 9, Adam suggests wherein the test points are determined as a function of the test-specific and component-specific test plan created by the test plan module (claims 1, 5; paragraph [0033][0034]; generating an object class-specific test plan (containing component attributes and test attribute); based on object class-specific test plan, define measurement points to be captured).
Per claim 10, Adam suggests wherein the measurement points include at least one component-specific measurement point and at least one test-specific measurement point (claims 1, 5; paragraph [0033][0034]; generating an object class-specific test plan (containing component attributes and test attribute); based on object class-specific test plan, define measurement points to be captured).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANG PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7667. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/HANG PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights