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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 17, line 3, it appears Applicant intended “a memory” to read --a non-transitory memory--
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-13, 17-18, and 21-26 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.
Specifically, claims 1 and 17 each recite "receiving a remote control instruction sent by a server … wherein the server comprises an offline server and a cloud server", or similar, which is indefinite. It is unclear whether both the offline server and cloud server are performing the step of sending the remote control instruction, or whether just one of them is, rendering the scope of the claim(s) indefinite. Furthermore, Applicant’s specification describes that either of these servers may perform this step, but not both. Claim(s) 2, 4-8 & 18, and 21-24 depend(s) from claim(s) 1 and 17, (respectively,) fail(s) to cure said indefiniteness issues, and is/are thereby similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret said limitation to mean "receiving a remote control instruction sent by a server … wherein the server comprises one of an offline server and a cloud server", or similar, as appears to be most consistent with Applicant's specification. Furthermore, various dependent claims make reference to “the server”, which is indefinite in light of the limitation “wherein the server comprises an offline server and a cloud server.”
Additionally, claim 9 recites "receiving a remote diagnosis request, wherein the remote diagnosis request comprises information of a vehicle to be diagnosed and diagnosis information of the vehicle to be diagnosed by a second server different from the first server", which is indefinite. It is unclear what is being done by a second server different from the first server, as the preamble implies that the first server is performing the method steps of claim 9, rendering the scope of the claim(s) indefinite. Claim(s) 10-13 and 25-26 depend(s) from claim(s) 9, (respectively,) fail(s) to cure said indefiniteness issues, and is/are thereby similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret said limitation to mean "receiving a remote diagnosis request, wherein the remote diagnosis request comprises information of a vehicle to be diagnosed and diagnosis information of the vehicle to be diagnosed, the diagnosis information generated by a second server different from the first server", as appears to be most consistent with Applicant's specification.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 1-2, 4-13, 17-18, and 21-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim(s) 1, Examiner deems a remote diagnosis method, performed by a vehicle to be diagnosed, comprising: receiving a remote control instruction sent by a server, wherein the remote control instruction corresponds to a diagnosis category, and the remote control instruction is configured to instruct the vehicle to be diagnosed to execute a target test script corresponding to the remote control instruction; executing the target test script based on a preset diagnostic engine; diagnosing an execution result of the target test script based on the preset diagnostic engine; and reporting a diagnostic result of the target test script to the server; wherein the server comprises an offline server and a cloud server, and receiving the remote control instruction comprises: receiving the remote control instruction sent, in response to a remote diagnosis request sent based on an electricity inspection result by the offline server after the offline server performs an electricity inspection on the vehicle to be diagnosed, by the cloud server to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Specifically, the prior art of record provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for modifying the prior art of record to include such a remote diagnosis method with the claimed architecture, specifically including wherein the server comprises an offline server and a cloud server, and receiving the remote control instruction comprises: receiving the remote control instruction sent, in response to a remote diagnosis request sent based on an electricity inspection result by the offline server after the offline server performs an electricity inspection on the vehicle to be diagnosed, by the cloud server.
Claim(s) 2, 4-8, and 18 depend(s) from claim(s) 1, (respectively,) and is/are deemed allowable at least by virtue of their dependence on allowable claims.
Regarding claim(s) 9, Examiner deems a remote diagnosis method, performed by a first server, comprising: receiving a remote diagnosis request, wherein the remote diagnosis request comprises information of a vehicle to be diagnosed and diagnosis information of the vehicle to be diagnosed by a second server different from the first server; sending a remote control instruction to the vehicle to be diagnosed based on the remote diagnosis request, wherein the remote control instruction is configured to instruct the vehicle to be diagnosed to perform a corresponding diagnosis; and receiving a diagnostic result sent by the vehicle to be diagnosed to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Specifically, the prior art of record provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for modifying the prior art of record to include such a remote diagnosis method, specifically including wherein the remote diagnosis request comprises information of a vehicle to be diagnosed and diagnosis information of the vehicle to be diagnosed by a second server different from the first server.
Claim(s) 10-13 and 25-26 depend(s) from claim(s) 9, (respectively,) and is/are deemed allowable at least by virtue of their dependence on allowable claims.
Regarding claim(s) 17, Examiner deems an electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor, and when the instructions are executed by the at least one processor, the at least one processor is configured to: receive a remote control instruction sent by a server, wherein the remote control instruction corresponds to a diagnosis category, and the remote control instruction is configured to instruct the electronic device to execute a target test script corresponding to the remote control instruction; execute the target test script based on a preset diagnostic engine; diagnose an execution result of the target test script based on the preset diagnostic engine; and report a diagnostic result of the target test script to the server; wherein the server comprises an offline server and a cloud server, and receiving the remote control instruction comprises: receiving the remote control instruction sent, in response to a remote diagnosis request sent based on an electricity inspection result by the offline server after the offline server performs an electricity inspection on the electronic device, by the cloud server to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Specifically, the prior art of record provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for modifying the prior art of record to include such an electronic device, specifically including wherein the server comprises an offline server and a cloud server, and receiving the remote control instruction comprises: receiving the remote control instruction sent, in response to a remote diagnosis request sent based on an electricity inspection result by the offline server after the offline server performs an electricity inspection on the electronic device, by the cloud server .
Claim(s) 21-24 depend(s) from claim(s) 17, (respectively,) and is/are deemed allowable at least by virtue of their dependence on allowable claims.
Yin et al. (CN 111026096; see attached machine translation) is deemed the closest prior art of record and teaches a vehicle diagnostics method to obtain a vehicle diagnosis request sent by a terminal, the vehicle diagnosis request including vehicle information of the target vehicle; according to the vehicle information, obtain the test task corresponding to the target vehicle; the test task is sent to the target vehicle, so that the target vehicle parses the test task and sends it to the corresponding object to be diagnosed on the target vehicle to execute the test (Yin Summary of Invention; pg. 1). Yin appears to be silent, however, on the method specifically including: (in regard to instant claim 1) wherein the server comprises an offline server and a cloud server, and receiving the remote control instruction comprises: receiving the remote control instruction sent, in response to a remote diagnosis request sent based on an electricity inspection result by the offline server after the offline server performs an electricity inspection on the vehicle to be diagnosed, by the cloud server; (in regard to instant claim 9) wherein the remote diagnosis request comprises information of a vehicle to be diagnosed and diagnosis information of the vehicle to be diagnosed by a second server different from the first server; and (in regard to instant claim 17) wherein the server comprises an offline server and a cloud server, and receiving the remote control instruction comprises: receiving the remote control instruction sent, in response to a remote diagnosis request sent based on an electricity inspection result by the offline server after the offline server performs an electricity inspection on the electronic device, by the cloud server.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL V KERRIGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-8:00pm.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/MICHAEL V KERRIGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664