DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11, and 12 remain pending.
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 Amendments
The Examiner acknowledges and accepts the amendments filed by Applicant on 12/23/2025.
The Applicant, via the claim amendments filed, overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejections set forth in the previous Office Action. The Examiner, therefore, withdraws said rejections.
The Applicant, via the claim amendments filed, overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretations set forth in the previous Office Action. The Examiner, therefore, withdraws the previous claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The Applicant, via the claim amendments filed, overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 claim rejections set forth in the previous Office Action. The Examiner, therefore, withdraws said rejections.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s submitted Remarks, filed on 12/23/2025. The Examiner below proceeds with a bona fide attempt to respond properly to each argument raised by the Applicant.
To begin, the Applicant asserts that amended claim 1 is directed to a statutory category, namely a vehicle fault detection system, which is a machine under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that recitation of a machine alone is sufficient to establish eligibility. A claim may recite a machine or another statutory category and still be directed to a judicial exception. Here, the focus of claim 1 remains the collection of operating status information, the preprocessing of operating status information, the analysis of operating status information according to a preset fault diagnosis model, and the display of a fault detection result. As a result, the Examiner maintains that claim 1 remains directed to an abstract idea notwithstanding recitation of the vehicle fault detection system in machine form.
The Applicant further asserts that the Office Action improperly characterizes amended claim 1 as merely collecting, preprocessing, analyzing, and classifying information. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner’s characterization follows directly from the language of claim 1 and from the functions assigned to the recited components. More specifically, the plurality of sub-controllers collects operating status information of components in a plurality of vehicle zones, preprocesses the operating status information to remove interference information, and sends the resulting operating status information set to the master controller. The master controller then detects faults in the operating status information set according to a preset fault diagnosis model and generates a fault detection result, which the fault display presents. Thus, claim 1 remains directed to information collection, information processing, information analysis, and result presentation rather than a specific technological improvement in vehicle operation or fault remediation.
The Applicant also asserts that the Office Action does not properly address the additional claim elements individually and in combination under Step 2B. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection identifies the additional elements recited in claim 1, including the master controller, the plurality of sub-controllers, the fault display, the plurality of first main control communication interfaces, the first sub-control communication interfaces, the second sub-control communication interfaces, and the communication link. The rejection further explains that the master controller, the plurality of sub-controllers, the fault display, the plurality of first main control communication interfaces, the first sub-control communication interfaces, the second sub-control communication interfaces, and the communication link are recited at a high level of generality and perform routine functions associated with receiving, transmitting, processing, analyzing, and displaying information. Considered individually, the recited components are generic components. Considered as an ordered combination, the recited components amount to no more than generic components used to carry out the abstract idea.
The Applicant further asserts that the claimed preprocessing performed by the plurality of sub-controllers improves fault detection efficiency and accuracy by reducing the volume of data processed by the master controller. The Examiner notes that although claim 1 recites preprocessing operating status information to remove interference information, claim 1 does not recite any specific technique for interference removal, any defined manner by which data volume is reduced, or any concrete improvement in operation of the master controller or the plurality of sub-controllers. Instead, claim 1 recites a desired result at a functional level of generality. Functional recitation of a desired result does not show a practical application of the abstract idea or an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea itself.
The Applicant further asserts that the recited plurality of first main control communication interfaces, first sub-control communication interfaces, second sub-control communication interfaces, and communication link among the plurality of sub-controllers improve communication transmission efficiency and communication stability by forming communication redundancy. The Examiner notes that claim 1 recites the plurality of first main control communication interfaces, the first sub-control communication interfaces, the second sub-control communication interfaces, and the communication link only in broad functional terms. Claim 1 does not recite any specific communication protocol, routing mechanism, failover technique, or other technical implementation that improves operation of the communication network itself. Rather, the plurality of first main control communication interfaces, the first sub-control communication interfaces, the second sub-control communication interfaces, and the communication link merely provide additional paths for communication of information among the recited controllers. Generic communication arrangements of that type do not amount to a technological improvement sufficient for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Applicant additionally asserts that amended claim 1 improves the technology of vehicle fault detection and therefore amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. The Examiner notes that claim 1 does not recite any specific improvement in vehicle operation, any corrective action responsive to a detected fault, any improved controller architecture, or any particular technological improvement in fault diagnosis. On the contrary, claim 1 remains focused on collecting operating status information, preprocessing operating status information, analyzing operating status information according to a preset fault diagnosis model, and displaying a fault detection result. Any alleged improvement identified by Applicant therefore is not reflected in claim 1 in a manner sufficient to demonstrate integration into a practical application or an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that amended claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the additional elements of claim 1, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
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 1, 2, 5-8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Specifically, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Analysis for Independent Claims 1 and 7:
Step 1: Determining if claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Independent claims 1 and 7 are directed to statutory categories. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, certain method of organizing human activity, or a mental processes (MPEP 2106.04).
Claim 1 is directed to a vehicle fault detection system comprising a master controller, a fault display, and a plurality of sub-controllers. As recited, the plurality of sub-controllers collect operating status information of components in different vehicle zones, pre-process the operating status information to remove interference information and obtain an operating status information set, and send the operating status information set to the master controller. The master controller detects faults of the operating status information set according to a preset fault diagnosis model and generates a fault detection result, wherein the fault display displays the fault detection result. Thus, the claim recites collecting information, pre-processing the information, analyzing the information using a model to detect faults, and presenting the results via a display.
The additionally recited limitations that the master controller comprises a plurality of first main control communication interfaces, that each sub-controller comprises a first sub-control communication interface and a second sub-control communication interface, and that a communication link is formed among the plurality of sub-controllers through the second sub-control communication interfaces merely describe the manner in which information is communicated among the recited components. These limitations do not change that the claim is focused on gathering, processing, analyzing, and displaying information. Courts have held that collecting information, analyzing it, and presenting the results of that analysis are abstract ideas. Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
Claim 7 recites a vehicle including the same fault detection system. Although claim 7 is framed as a vehicle, the focus of the claim remains the collection of operating status information, preprocessing that information, analyzing the information according to a preset fault diagnosis model to detect faults, and displaying a fault detection result. The additional recitation of communication interfaces and a communication link among sub-controllers likewise merely sets forth how information is exchanged within the system and does not alter the claim’s focus on information processing and result presentation. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites a master controller, a fault display, and a plurality of sub-controllers performing the abstract processes of collecting operating status information, pre-processing the information to remove interference information, analyzing the information according to a preset fault diagnosis model to detect faults, and displaying a fault detection result. The additionally recited communication interfaces and communication link among the sub-controllers merely describe generic communication of information between system components. These elements, considered individually and in combination, do not improve the functioning of a computer, controller, communication network, or vehicle system, and do not effect a transformation or other meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim does not recite a specific technological improvement in fault detection, a particular improvement in communication architecture, or any physical action taken based on the detected fault. Rather, the claim is directed to processing information and presenting the result of that processing. Accordingly, claim 1 fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Claim 7 similarly does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although claim 7 is recited in the context of a vehicle, limiting the abstract idea to a particular environment does not amount to integration into a practical application. The claim still centers on collecting operating status information, pre-processing that information, analyzing the information using a preset fault diagnosis model, and displaying a fault detection result. The recited communication interfaces and communication link likewise merely provide for communication of information among components and do not recite any technological improvement or meaningful application beyond the abstract idea itself. Further, the claim does not recite any physical vehicle control, component actuation, hardware reconfiguration, or other operational improvement resulting from the detected fault. Accordingly, claim 7 fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the analysis turns to whether the additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In claim 1, the additional elements include a master controller, a fault display, a plurality of sub-controllers, a plurality of first main control communication interfaces, first sub-control communication interfaces, second sub-control communication interfaces, and a communication link formed among the plurality of sub-controllers. These elements are recited at a high level of generality and are described in functional terms for collecting operating status information, preprocessing the information to remove interference information, transmitting the information, detecting faults according to a preset fault diagnosis model, generating a fault detection result, and displaying the fault detection result. Nothing in the claim indicates that these components are arranged or used in a manner that is unconventional, nor does the claim recite a particular technological implementation that amounts to an inventive concept. Rather, the claim merely uses generic controllers, interfaces, and a display as tools to carry out the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 1 does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 7 likewise does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 7 recites substantially the same components and functions, with the system embodied in a vehicle. However, reciting the abstract idea in the environment of a vehicle does not add an inventive concept. The claim still relies on generic controllers, communication interfaces, and a display to collect information, pre-process and transmit that information, analyze the information according to a preset fault diagnosis model, and display a result. Viewed individually and as an ordered combination, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claim 7 also fails Step 2B.
Conclusion:
The independent claims 1 and 7 are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 1 and 7 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Analysis for Dependent Claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, and 12:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
The dependent claims are properly directed to claims 1 and 7. As a result, the dependent claims are properly directed to statutory classes. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’”).
The dependent claims continue to encompass the mental process established in the independent claim(s). The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for the independent claim(s) applies. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claims recite additional limitations, these limitations, when viewed both individually and in combination for the claim, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As a result, the dependent claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements in the dependent claims fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually (i.e., within a claim) and as a whole (i.e., claim set), that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent claim analysis). As a result, the dependent claims fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception and fail to integrate said claims into a practical application.
Conclusion:
The dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11, and 12 are not patent eligible.
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 ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights