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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group l corresponding to claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 1/15/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 1-6 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.
Applicant recites “the local computing device can be controlled by the remote computing device” in claim 1 line 15. It is unclear whether applicant is intending to positively recite the limitations following the term “can”. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted as if the limitations following the term “can” are not positively recited.
Claims 2-6 are rejected as a result of being dependent on a rejected claim.
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, are rejected as best understood in view of the above 112 rejection, 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, 0018-0021, 0037-0038 and 0042 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 can be controlled by the remote computing device [as can be seen from Figures 1-6 in McQuade et al.].
Regarding to claim 2, McQuade et al. discloses the method of claim 1, 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 0042 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) 4 and 6 is/are rejected, as best understood in view of the above 112 rejection, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McQuade et al. (US 2021/0074088).
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.
Conclusion
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