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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the arguments filed on August 06, 2026. Claims 1-5 are currently pending.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments, filed August 06, 2026, the Examiner maintains the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed August 06, 2026, regarding the teachings of the applied references (see pages 4-5 of instant arguments), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Fang teaches a method for enabling communication of messages between the vehicle and external diagnostic devices (i.e., data is transferred between the two) (see at least Paragraphs [0056], [0061]-[0062], [0096] of Fang). Jung further teaches that vehicle data can be collected and transferred based on memory allocation priorities, including memory resources, size, and capacity (see at least Paragraphs [0419], [0550]-[0551] of Jung). Fang, in view of Jung, teaches that the system can send and receive vehicle diagnostic data, and send the information based on available memory. As such, Fang, in view of Jung, teaches the features of the claims, as they are currently written. The Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
Applicant's arguments, filed August 06, 2026, regarding selecting which device receives data first (see pages 5-6 of instant arguments), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants’ arguments regarding selecting a device first based on its available memory is not required in the claims, as they are currently written. As such, the Examiner considers these arguments moot and the Examiner is unpersuaded.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addresses above and/or below and are unpersuasive for essentially the same reasons. Therefore, the corresponding rejections are maintained.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0382597 A1, to Jung (hereinafter referred to as Jung; previously of record), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0192867 A1, to Fang, et al (hereinafter referred to as Fang; previously of record).
As per Claim 1, Jung discloses the features of a transfer device (e.g. Paragraphs [0056], [0061]-[0062], [0117]; where the vehicle has a computing system, which generates a communication message for a diagnostic request or response between the vehicle and an external diagnostic device) configured to
transfer a message from one side to another side (e.g. Paragraphs [0046]-[0047], [0052]; where the internal diagnostic devices (210, 220), the vehicle internal controller (230), the external diagnostic device (300) and the like may request a vehicle diagnosis to each other, receive a response, and transmit a response through use of a gateway (500) (i.e. a transfer device)) between
a plurality of electronic devices mounted on a vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0045]-[0046]; Figure 1; where the vehicle system includes a vehicle diagnostic communication apparatus and internal diagnostic devices internal to the vehicle (i.e. mounted in the vehicle)) and
external diagnostic equipment (e.g. Paragraphs [0046]-[0047]; where the external diagnostic device (300) may request a vehicle diagnosis with the internal diagnostic devices and the vehicle internal controller), and
comprising a processor (e.g. Paragraphs [0056], [0059], where the vehicle diagnostic communication apparatus may include a communicator, storage, and a processor) configured to:
receive a diagnosis request that is a message from the external diagnostic equipment to the plurality of electronic devices (e.g. Paragraph [0050]; Figure 8; where the external diagnostic device (300) may request a vehicle diagnostic service to the internal diagnostic devices and the internal vehicle controller (230), which is sent to the vehicle processor through the gateway (500)), and
transfer the diagnosis request to one or more first electronic devices of the plurality of electronic devices (e.g. Paragraphs [0050], [0054]-[0055]; Figure 8; where the external diagnostic device (300) may request a vehicle diagnostic service to the internal diagnostic devices and the internal vehicle controller (230); and where the vehicle diagnostic communication apparatus (100) may receive and respond to a vehicle diagnosis request, and transmits the request to the internal diagnostic devices and the internal vehicle controller), wherein ‘…’
receive a diagnosis response that is a message from the one or more first electronic devices to the external diagnostic equipment (e.g. Figure 8; where the gateway (500) (i.e. a transfer device) receives the diagnosis responses from the internal diagnostic devices and controller, and sends it back to the external diagnostic device (300)) and
transfer the diagnosis response to the external diagnostic equipment (e.g. Paragraph [0096]; Figure 8; where the gateway (500) (i.e. a transfer device) receives the diagnosis responses from the internal diagnostic devices and controller) and, thereafter,
transfer the diagnosis request to one or more second electronic devices different from the one or more first electronic devices (e.g. Paragraph [0096]; Figure 8; where the gateway (500) (i.e. a transfer device) sends back the diagnostic responses to the external diagnostic device (300); and where the diagnostic device may re-transmit the diagnosis request to another controller).
Jung fails to disclose every feature of the one or more first electronic devices are selected based on available memory resources of the device and an expected total size of diagnosis responses relative to a capacity of a buffer area configured to temporarily store the diagnosis responses and diagnosis requests.
However, Fang, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for managing vehicle data collection, where the on-vehicle data storage priority includes one or more of memory allocation priorities, including buffer capacity, cache capacity, short-term memory capacity, and/or long term memory capacity; and where the on-vehicle storage resources may include determine and update memory allocation, and the controller can manage shared memory resources, including providing memory allocation, buffering and caching of parameter values, and reallocate memory based on changes in policy, observed data collection operations, etc.; and where the parameter storage circuit determines the reserved memory amount associated with at least a portion of the plurality of vehicle parameters, and selectively stores the values in response to the reserved memory amount (e.g. Paragraphs [0419], [0550]-[0551], [0578], [0582]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify vehicle diagnostic communication apparatus of Jung, with the feature of determining available memory resources in the system of Fang, in order to selectively store relevant data (see at least Paragraphs [0020] of Fang).
As per Claim 2, Jung, in view of Fang, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Jung further discloses the features of wherein the processor is further configured to: receive the diagnosis response from the one or more second electronic devices after the device transfers the diagnosis response from the one or more first electronic devices to the external diagnostic equipment (e.g. Paragraph [0096]; Figure 8; where the gateway (500) receives the diagnosis response, and sends back the diagnostic responses to the external diagnostic device (300), which may may re-transmit the diagnosis request to another controller).
As per Claim 3, Jung, in view of Fang, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Jung further discloses the features of wherein the electronic device divides the diagnosis response into a plurality of frames and transmits the frames to the device (e.g. Paragraphs [0043], [0062]-[0063], [0102]-[0103], [0110]; where diagnostic communication is performed using a CAN communication frame, and may transmit data by using a combination of first frame (FF) message, a flow control (FC) message, and a consecutive frame (CF) message; and the internal diagnostic device transmits a diagnostic message to the internal controller which then transmits multi-frame sequences to the requesting device (i.e. transmits a plurality of frames)).
As per Claim 4, Jung, in view of Fang, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Jung further discloses the features of wherein the processor is further configured to transfer the plurality of frames to the external diagnostic equipment, and thereafter, transfer the diagnosis request to the one or more second electronic devices (e.g. Paragraphs [0043], [0062]-[0063], [0102]-[0103], [0110]; where diagnostic communication is performed using a CAN communication frame, and may transmit data by using a combination of first frame (FF) message, a flow control (FC) message, and a consecutive frame (CF) message; and the internal diagnostic device transmits a diagnostic message to the internal controller which then transmits multi-frame sequences to the requesting device (i.e. transmits all relevant frames)).
As per Claim 5, Jung, in view of Fang, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Jung further discloses the features of wherein the processor is configured to, in transferring the diagnosis request to the one or more first electronic devices, transfer the diagnosis request sequentially in accordance with a priority order that is determined in advance for each of the electronic devices (e.g. Paragraphs [0043], [0062]-[0063], [0102]-[0103], [0110]; where diagnostic communication is performed using a CAN communication frame, and may transmit data by using a combination of first frame (FF) message, a flow control (FC) message, and a consecutive frame (CF) message (i.e. in sequential order) and based on priority).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MERRITT LEVY whose telephone number is (571)270-5595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0630-1600.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/MERRITT LEVY/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights