DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 17 December 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The new limitation is disclosed by at least Griffiths.
Arguments concerning the dependent claims 3, 10, and 12 are addressed in the revised rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
3. Claims 1-11 and 13-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanathan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2009/0327325) in view of Griffiths et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0016786).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Ramanathan discloses a system, comprising:
a processor (figs, etc); and
a memory storing executable instructions, the executable instructions when executed by the processor (figs, etc), cause the processor to:
obtain in-operation data of a vehicle, the in-operation data including a fault code indicative of a fault in the vehicle (par. 0048 - 0050; fig. 4 and 5: 118, etc);
identify a trained model from a plurality of trained models using the fault code (par. 0051, 0052; fig. 4 and 5: 120, 116, etc);
use the trained model and a subset of features of the in-operation data of the vehicle to generate a troubleshooting procedure for identifying a root cause of the fault, wherein the subset of features is selected by the user (par. 0053, 0051; fig. 4 and 5: 122, 130, 118, etc); and
provide the troubleshooting procedure as an output to identify the root cause of the fault (par. 0053; fig. 4 and 5: 132, etc).
Ramanathan strongly implies but does not explicitly disclose that the models are trained (fig. 5: 112-116, etc), and fails to disclose that the subset of features is selected based on a statistical importance of each feature of the subset of features in isolating the root cause.
In the same field of endeavor, Griffiths discloses that the models are trained (fig. 16, par. 0052, 0059, 0064-0065, etc), and that the subset of features is selected based on a statistical importance of each feature of the subset of features in isolating the root cause (par. 0279, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramanathan to use trained models and select the features based on a statistical importance of each feature in isolating the root cause, as taught by Griffiths, in order to better predict vehicle faults and identify/classify causes of vehicle faults based on data from the vehicle (fig. 16, par. 0052, 0059, 0064-0065, 0279, etc), with predictable results.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Ramanathan in view of Griffiths further discloses that the in-operation data of the vehicle represents trip summary data (Griffiths par. 0005-0006, 0076, etc).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 21, Ramanathan in view of Griffiths further discloses that at least one troubleshooting step of the troubleshooting procedure comprises sending one or more instructions to a controller of the vehicle, the one or more instructions causing an engine of the vehicle to operate at a predefined engine speed or a predefined engine torque (implied by Griffiths par. 0006, 0076, etc; also well known in the art, the Examiner hereby takes Official Notice. See at least Wang et al. US # 6,850,833 col 3: 4-7 “The control computer may further be configured to command the engine speed to a predefined engine speed range prior to diagnosing the fault state”, claim 19, etc).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 17, Ramanathan in view of Griffiths further discloses that the troubleshooting procedure includes a sequence of troubleshooting steps and each troubleshooting step is associated with a corresponding component of the vehicle, and wherein generating the troubleshooting procedure comprises: determining, for each of the troubleshooting steps, a corresponding confidence probability indicative of a probability that the associated component is the root cause of the fault; and customizing the sequence of troubleshooting steps such that the troubleshooting steps are ordered according to a descending order of confidence probabilities (P28, etc; or Griffiths fig. 4, par. 0281, 0145, 0267, 0169, etc).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Ramanathan in view of Griffiths further discloses that the in-operation data of the vehicle includes at least one of engine performance data or aftertreatment system performance data (Griffiths par. 0006, 0076, figs 9-14, par. 0239, etc).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, Ramanathan in view of Griffiths further discloses that providing the troubleshooting procedure as the output comprises generating a user interface and causing a display device to display the user interface, and wherein the user interface comprises an interactive list of troubleshooting steps of the troubleshooting procedure (par. 0053; fig. 5: 132, etc: implicit; or Griffiths figs. 2, 7-14, par. 0155, 0166, 0227, 0266, etc).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, Ramanathan in view of Griffiths further discloses that providing the troubleshooting procedure as the output comprises generating an output file comprising the troubleshooting procedure and retrievably storing the output file in the memory (par. 0053; fig. 5: 132, etc: implicit; or Griffiths figs. 2, par. 0099, etc).
4. Claims 3, 10, and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanathan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2009/0327325) in view of Griffiths et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0016786), and further in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Patent # 6,850,833).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 21, Ramanathan in view of Griffiths fails to discloses that at least one troubleshooting step of the troubleshooting procedure comprises sending one or more instructions to a controller of the vehicle, the one or more instructions causing an engine of the vehicle to operate at a predefined engine speed or a predefined engine torque.
In the same field of endeavor, Wang discloses that at least one troubleshooting step of the troubleshooting procedure comprises sending one or more instructions to a controller of the vehicle, the one or more instructions causing an engine of the vehicle to operate at a predefined engine speed or a predefined engine torque (col 3: 4-7 “The control computer may further be configured to command the engine speed to a predefined engine speed range prior to diagnosing the fault state”, claim 19, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramanathan to do so, as taught by Wang, in order to reduce the risk of damage to the engine, vehicle, or occupants and/or provide more accurate diagnostics of the vehicle, with predictable results.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1330. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone. 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Shelley Chen/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3665
January 18, 2026