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 . Pursuant to communications filed on 18 June 2026, amendments and/or arguments have been submitted and placed in the application file. Claims 2 and 4-20 have been cancelled, claims 21-38 have been added, therefore claims 1, 3 and 21-38 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection provided below, which was necessitated based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims, which also changed the scope of said claims.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 21, 28, 29, 32, 33 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruz (US 2006/0145714 A1) in view of Marshall et al (US 2015/0121275 A1, hereinafter Marshall).
Regarding claim 1, Cruz teaches an intelligent diagnostic probe (Figures 1-3, electrical test device 10) for providing troubleshooting guidance during diagnosing faults within vehicle electrical systems, the intelligent diagnostic probe comprising:
a housing (Figure 2, housing 14) configured to be grasped in a hand (Figures 1-3; at least as in paragraphs 0035-0036, specifically wherein the housing 14 is designed for “single-hand operation of the test device 10.”);
a conductive probe element (Figure 2, conductive probe element 50) protruding distally from the housing (Figures 1-3; at least as in paragraphs 0021-0022 & 0039, specifically as shown in Figure 2);
a distal probe tip (Figure 2, probe tip 48) of the conductive probe element configured to be placed into contact with an electrical circuit (Figures 1-3; at least as in paragraph 0039, specifically wherein “included with the probe element 50 is a probe tip 48 on an extreme end thereof.”);
a display screen (Figures 1-4, display 54, LCD 56) configured to display measurement data (Figures 1-4; at least as in paragraphs 0021, 0025, 0034 & 0049, at least as in paragraph 0025, wherein the display device 54 is configured to display an output reading of an output signal from the electrical system);
a power cable (Figures 2 & 3, power cable 78) extending from a bottom end of the housing and configured to be connected to a motor vehicle battery (Figures 2-4; at least paragraphs 0037-0039, specifically as shown in at least Figures 2-4); and
a ground lead (Figures 2 & 3, ground lead 82) coupled with the power cable and configured to be electrically connected a ground source (Figures 2-4; at least paragraphs 0037-0039, specifically as shown in at least Figures 2-4). Cruz is silent specifically regarding “wherein the intelligent diagnostic probe is configured to provide an icon-based user interface and the icon-based user interface includes any two or more of a Multimeter icon, an Injector icon, an EZ-Learning icon, a Settings icon, a Guided Diagnostics icon, and a Sensors icon.”
Marshall, in the same field of endeavor of handheld vehicle diagnostic tools, teaches a vehicle diagnostic apparatus that includes a user interface including one or more icons for selection by the user to access one or more diagnostic-related features. Marshall goes on to teach wherein multiple and/or different icons may be provided on the user interface, including one or more of an OBDII icon (i.e. diagnostic icon), DTC icon, Repair Information icon, Settings icon and Sensors icon (Figures 1, 3B & 4A-F; at least as in paragraphs 0028, 0043 and 0045). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Cruz, to include Marshall’s teaching(s) of an icon-based user interface with a diagnostic apparatus, since Marshall teaches wherein presenting icons on a display provides a more convenient and reliable user-friendly display, thereby providing a more dynamic and robust diagnostic device.
Regarding claim 3, in view of the above combination of Cruz and Marshall, Cruz further teaches wherein the intelligent diagnostic probe includes one or more navigation buttons and a selection button configured to facilitate an operator interacting with the icon-based user interface (Figures 1-3; at least as in paragraphs 0042-0043, specifically wherein the keypad is used to manipulate and control the functionality of the device based on the displayed information provided on said device, and further at least as shown in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 21, in view of the above combination of Cruz and Marshall, Cruz further teaches wherein the display screen is positioned on a front face of the housing and is oriented to be viewable during handheld use (Figures 2-5; at least as in paragraph 0035, and further at least as shown in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 28, in view of the above combination of Cruz and Marshall, Cruz further teaches wherein the housing includes an upper portion that tapers toward the conductive probe element (Figures 2-5; at least as in paragraphs 0035-0038, specifically as shown in the referenced Figures).
Regarding claim 29, in view of the above combination of Cruz and Marshall, Cruz further teaches wherein the housing includes a lower portion configured to house the one or more navigation buttons and the selection button (Figures 1-3; at least as in paragraphs 0042-0043, specifically as shown in at least the referenced Figures).
Regarding claim 32, in view of the above combination of Cruz and Marshall, Cruz further teaches wherein actuation of the selection button selects one of the icons (Figures 1-3; at least as in paragraphs 0042-0043, specifically wherein the keypad is used to manipulate and control the functionality of the device based on the displayed information provided on said device, and further at least as shown in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 33, in view of the above combination of Cruz and Marshall, Marshall further teaches wherein the icon-based user interface includes graphical symbols and textual labels associated with each selectable icon (Figures 1, 3B & 4A-F; at least as in paragraphs 0028, 0043 and 0045, specifically at least as shown in the referenced Figures).
Regarding claim 37, in view of the above combination of Cruz and Marshall, Marshall further teaches wherein the icon-based user interface includes a Guided Diagnostics icon that, when selected, initiates a guided diagnostic functionality for diagnosing faults in components of the vehicle electrical system (Figures 1, 3B & 4A-F; at least as in paragraphs 0028, 0043 and 0045).
Claim(s) 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruz (US 2006/0145714 A1) as modified by Marshall et al (US 2015/0121275 A1, hereinafter Marshall) above, and further in view of Fish et al (US 2014/0074343 A1, hereinafter Fish).
The teachings of Cruz and Marshall have been discussed above.
Regarding claim 22, Cruz as modified by Marshall above, are silent specifically regarding wherein the one or more navigation buttons are arranged circumferentially around the selection button. Fish, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle diagnostic devices, teaches a diagnostic tool with an icon-based user interface. Fish goes on to teach wherein the diagnostic tool may further include a plurality of navigation buttons arranged circumferentially around a central (i.e. selection) button (Figure 1; at least paragraphs 0018-0021). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the teachings of Cruz as modified by Marshall above, to include Fish’s button configuration, since Fish teaches wherein such a design arrangement is easily accessible by a user of the handheld diagnostic tool. Examiner additionally notes wherein one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the known prior art elements of Cruz, Marshall and Fish according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 23, Cruz as modified by Marshall above, are silent specifically regarding wherein the selection button is centrally located within a directional control pad (Figure 1; at least paragraphs 0018-0021). Fish, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle diagnostic devices, teaches a diagnostic tool with an icon-based user interface. Fish goes on to teach wherein the diagnostic tool may further include a plurality of navigation buttons arranged circumferentially around a central (i.e. selection) button (Figure 1; at least paragraphs 0018-0021). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the teachings of Cruz as modified by Marshall above, to include Fish’s button configuration, since Fish teaches wherein such a design arrangement is easily accessible by a user of the handheld diagnostic tool. Examiner additionally notes wherein one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the known prior art elements of Cruz, Marshall and Fish according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 24-27, 30, 31, 34-36 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruz (US 2006/0145714 A1) as modified by Marshall et al (US 2015/0121275 A1, hereinafter Marshall) above, and further in view of Sullivan et al (US 2009/0300548 A1, hereinafter Sullivan).
The teachings of Cruz and Marshall have been discussed above.
Regarding claim 24, Cruz as modified by Marshall above, are silent specifically regarding wherein the icon-based user interface presents a plurality of selectable icons arranged in a grid. Sullivan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a graphical user interface for a portable diagnostic device that presents a plurality of selectable icons arranged in a grid (Figures 2 & 8-14; at least as in paragraphs 0032-0037 and 0050-0055). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Cruz, as modified by Marshall above, to include Sullivan’s graphical user interface that displays a plurality of selectable icons arranged in a grid, since Sullivan teaches wherein said graphical user interface provides improved organization and presentation efficiency, as well as navigation speed, for portable diagnostic devices, thereby providing a more robust diagnostic device.
Regarding claim 25, in view of the above combination of Cruz, Marshall and Sullivan, Sullivan further teaches wherein the plurality of selectable icons are arranged in a two-column by three-row configuration (Figures 2 & 8-14; at least as in paragraphs 0032-0037 and 0050-0055).
Regarding claim 26, in view of the above combination of Cruz, Marshall and Sullivan, Sullivan further teaches wherein each selectable icon corresponds to a distinct diagnostic function of the intelligent diagnostic probe (Figures 2 & 8-14; at least as in paragraphs 0032-0037 and 0050-0055).
Regarding claim 27, Cruz as modified by Marshall above, are silent regarding wherein the display screen is surrounded by a bezel portion of the housing, however, Sullivan, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the display screen is surrounded by a bezel portion of the housing (specifically as shown in at least Figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Cruz, as modified by Marshall above, to include Sullivan’s design choice to provide the display surrounded by a bezel portion, since Sullivan teaches wherein providing a bezel portion surrounding the display is aesthetically pleasing to a user of the portable diagnostic device.
Regarding claim 30, Cruz as modified by Marshall above, are silent specifically regarding wherein actuation of the navigation buttons moves a visual indicator between icons on the display screen. Sullivan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a graphical user interface for a portable diagnostic device that presents a plurality of selectable icons arranged in a grid. Sullivan further teaches wherein a visual indication may be provided on the graphical user interface to indicate (i.e. highlight, emphasize, etc.) which icon/item may be selected by the user (Figures 2 & 8-14; at least as in paragraphs 0032-0037 and 0050-0055). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Cruz, as modified by Marshall above, to include Sullivan’s graphical user interface that provides an enhanced visual indication on the display, since Sullivan teaches wherein said graphical user interface provides improved presentation efficiency, as well as navigation speed, for portable diagnostic devices, thereby providing a more robust diagnostic device.
Regarding claim 31, in view of the above combination of Cruz, Marshall and Sullivan, Sullivan further teaches wherein a particular selectable icon indicated by the visual indicator has a different background color from each of the other selectable icons (Figures 2 & 8-14; at least as in paragraphs 0032-0037 and 0050-0055).
Regarding claim 34, in view of the above combination of Cruz, Marshall and Sullivan, Marshall further teaches wherein each selectable icon includes a pictorial representation indicative of its corresponding function (Figures 1, 3B & 4A-F; at least as in paragraphs 0028, 0043 and 0045).
Regarding claim 35, in view of the above combination of Cruz, Marshall and Sullivan, Sullivan further teaches wherein each selectable icon is displayed within a corresponding rectangular region on the display screen (Figures 2 & 8-14; at least as in paragraphs 0032-0037 and 0050-0055).
Regarding claim 36, in view of the above combination of Cruz, Marshall and Sullivan, Sullivan further teaches wherein the plurality of selectable icons are evenly spaced relative to one another (Figures 2 & 8-14; at least as in paragraphs 0032-0037 and 0050-0055).
Regarding claim 38, in view of the above combination of Cruz, Marshall and Sullivan, Sullivan further teaches wherein the visual indicator sequentially advances among the plurality of selectable icons responsively to successive actuations of the navigation buttons (Figures 2 & 8-14; at least as in paragraphs 0032-0037 and 0050-0055).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 – Notice of References Cited form. Examiner additionally notes the following prior art references, in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention, and also reads on many of the currently provided claim limitations above;
US 2016/0078691 A1, issued to Roepke, which is directed towards a portable vehicle diagnostic tool including an icon-based user interface for initiating one or more diagnostic applications/procedures.
US 2014/0129077 A1, issued to Selkirk et al, which is directed towards a vehicle diagnostic tool with an icon-based user interface and corresponding navigational and selection buttons provided on the housing of the diagnostic tool.
Applicant's 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 JONATHAN L SAMPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5925. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571)270-5376. 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.
/JONATHAN L SAMPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights