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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McQuade et al. (US 2021/0074088).
Regarding to claim 1, McQuade et al. discloses a method of performing a diagnostic evaluation of a vehicle [as described in paragraph 0008 and 0037 and can be seen from Figures 1-6 in McQuade et al.], comprising: connecting a local computing device (controller in vehicle, at least one processor 42, 106, as described in paragraph 0010 and 0044 in McQuade et al. and can be seen from Figures 1-6 in McQuade et al.) to a vehicle (vehicle 41, as described in paragraph 0044 and can be seen from Figure 3 in McQuade et al.), wherein the local computing device and the vehicle are provided at a first location [as described in paragraph 0010, 0036-0040 and 0044 in McQuade et al.]; providing a remote computing device (60, as can be seen from Figure 4 in McQuade et al.) at a second location [as described in paragraph 0010, 0036-0040 and 0044 and can be seen from Figure 4 in McQuade], wherein the second location is remote from the first location [as can be seen from Figure 4 in McQuade et al.]; establishing a wireless communication link (data link 12, as described in paragraph 0018 and can be seen from Figure 1 in McQuade et al.) between the remote computing device and the local computing device [as can be seen from Figures 1-7 in McQuade et al.], thereby enabling the remote computing device to control the local computing device [control of local computing device via the real time service provided to operator of vehicle from the remote computing device, as described in paragraph 0011, 0013-0014, 0018-0021, 0037-0038, 0042-0045, 0049-0050 and 0056 and can be seen from Figures 1-4 in McQuade et al.]; using the remote computing device, controlling the local computing device to access an original equipment manufacturer, OEM, portal (102, as can be seen from Figure 6 in McQuade et al.) [control of local computing device via the real time service provided to operator of vehicle from the remote computing device, as described in paragraph 0011, 0018-0021, 0037-0038 and 0042 and can be seen from Figures 1-4 in McQuade et al.], thereby operatively connecting the OEM portal (102) to the local computing device (controller in vehicle, at least one processor 42, 106); and performing a diagnostic evaluation of the vehicle [as can be seen from Figures 1-6 in McQuade et al.], wherein the diagnostic evaluation of the vehicle is performed by the OEM portal (102) using the local computing device (controller in vehicle, at least one processor 42, 106) [as can be seen from Figures 1-6 in McQuade et al.], wherein the local computing device (controller in vehicle including processor 42, 106) is controlled during the diagnostic evaluation by the remote computing device (60) [as described in paragraph 0011, 0013-0014, 0018-0021, 0037-0038, 0042-0045, 0049-0050 and 0056, and can be seen from Figures 1-6 in McQuade et al. Note that this includes real time bi-directional communication including configuration data from remote computer used to modify the function implemented by the processor in diagnostic unit, including instructions and messages, such as to cease vehicle operations as soon as possible to avoid unsafe or damaging conditions].
wherein establishing the wireless communication link between the remote computing device (60) and the local computing device comprises using a remote desktop application (processing application, as described in paragraph 0014, 0042-0043 in McQuade et al.) on the remote computing device [as described in paragraph 0038-0042 and can be seen from Figures 1-6 in McQuade et al.].
Regarding to claim 3, McQuade et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein controlling the local computing device to access the OEM portal comprises accessing the OEM portal (102) using the local computing device (controller in vehicle, at least one processor 42, 106) via a wireless communication network (wireless network 70, as can be seen from Figure 5 in McQuade et al.).
Regarding to claim 5, McQuade et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein prior to enabling the remote computing device to control the local computing device, the method comprises sending an electronic communication to a remote technician to request initiation of the remote diagnostic evaluation [initial step of enrolling a vehicle, as described in paragraph 0040- 0044 and can be seen from Figure 1-6 in McQuade et al.].
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McQuade et al. (US 2021/0074088).
Regarding to claim 2, McQuade et al. discloses the method of claim 1, having an OEM portal (102) and a remote server (paragraph 0043 and can be seen from Figures 7-8 in McQuade et al.. However, McQuade does not explicitly disclose the OEM portal hosted on a remote server. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to host the OEM portal on a remote server, as a known technique used for processing information.
Regarding to claim 4, McQuade et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein having an OEM portal (102), local computing device (controller in vehicle, at least one processor 42, 106), and wireless communication link (70). McQuade et al., however, does not explicitly disclose a step of entering authentication details on the local computing device via the wireless communication link, wherein the authentication details are associated with a registered user of the OEM portal . However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by McQuade et al. to include a step of authenticating details associated with a registered user/owner of a vehicle, as a well-known technique to improve security and privacy, which would yield predictable results.
Regarding to claim 6, McQuade et al. discloses the method of claim 1, including performing a diagnostic evaluation of the vehicle [as can be seen from Figures 1-6 in McQuade]. However, McQuade et al. does not explicitly disclose performing a diagnostic scan or a diagnostic pre-scan of at least one electronic system in the vehicle. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of McQuade et al. to include a step of performing a scan of at least one electronic system vehicle, as a known technique used to perform diagnostics on a vehicle system , which would yield predicable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 6/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art of McQuade fails to disclose enabling the remote control device to control the local computing device; using the remote computing device, controlling the local computing device to access an OEM portal thereby operatively connecting the OEM portal to the local computing device; wherein the diagnostic evaluation of the vehicle is performed by the OEM portal using the local computing device, wherein the local computing device is controlled during the diagnostic evaluation by the remote computing device. However, this is not found to be persuasive. The prior art of record discloses the remote control device controlling the local computing device, which includes the real time bi-directional communication [as described in paragraph 0013 and 0044] including configuration data from remote computer used to modify the function implemented by the processor in diagnostic unit [as described in paragraph 0050], including instructions and messages, such as to cease vehicle operations as soon as possible to avoid unsafe or damaging conditions [as described in paragraph 0050], and as rejected above. The prior art of record also discloses steps of using the remote computing device to control the local computing device and wherein the diagnostic evaluation of the vehicle is performed by the OEM portal using the local computer, as rejected above.
Applicants’ arguments regarding claim 2 is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above.
Applicant has amended the claims; however, applicants’ amendments fail to add sufficient structure to the method to overcome the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 NIRVANA DEONAUTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5949. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 5712720993. 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.
/NIRVANA DEONAUTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights