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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 18, and 20 relate to the statutory category of method/process and machine/apparatus. The independent claims 1, 18, and 20 recite “receiving, at one or more processors, vehicle service data corresponding to previously serviced vehicles; identifying, at the one or more processors using natural language processing, textual content within the vehicle service data, wherein the textual content indicates a vehicle identifier, a symptom identifier corresponding to a vehicle symptom, service information corresponding to the vehicle symptom, and usage data corresponding to multiple vehicles identifiable by the vehicle identifier; generating, at the one or more processors, metadata corresponding to the identified textual content; classifying, at the one or more processors, the metadata as a cluster within a particular category of vehicle service data clusters; generating, at the one or more processors, vehicle service content based on the metadata, the vehicle service content include a usage value corresponding to the usage data identified within the textual content; receiving, at the one or more processors from a vehicle service tool, a request including the symptom identifier and the vehicle identifier; and transmitting, by the one or more processors in response to the request, the vehicle service content to a communication network for transmission to the vehicle service tool”.
The limitations of claims 1, 18, and 20 of “receiving…”, “identifying…”, “generating…”, “classifying…”, “generating…”, receiving…”, and “transmitting…” as drafted covers mental activity. A human , after receiving a transcription of a vehicle service order can extract from the service order the vehicle identification, the issue with the vehicle, the mileage or hours driven of the vehicle corresponding to multiple vehicles. The data collected is then tagged and grouped into several categories based on the type of service orders. The data is then used to generate service to be performed based on what the mileage and hours the vehicle has been driven. The service to be performed is then sent to whomever is to perform the service.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 18, and 20 recite the additional elements of “processors”, and “memory” which are recited generally in the specification. For example, in paragraphs [0091]-[00092] and [0097] of the as filed specification, there is a description of using a general purpose operating system. Accordingly, these additional elements don not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer as a general computer is noted. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 2, the claim relates to the average milage driven by some of the vehicles. The claim relates to a mental activity of calculating the average mileage based on the information on the service orders for the multiple vehicles. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 3, the claim relates to the claim relates to the average hours driven by some of the vehicles. The claim relates to a mental activity of calculating the average hours based on the information on the service orders for the multiple vehicles. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 4, the claim relates to determining what the issue with the vehicles is based on the diagnostic code. The claim relates to a mental activity of determining the meaning of the diagnostic code to figure out the issue with the vehicle. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 5, the claim relates to determining what the issue with the vehicles is based on a trouble code. The claim relates to a mental activity of diagnosing what the issue is with the vehicle. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 6, the claim relates to verifying if the issue with the vehicle was completed based on what the transcription lists as the verification to be done. The claim relates to a mental activity of testing to make sure the issue with the vehicle has been corrected. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 7, the claim relates to the format of the transcription. The claim relates to a mental activity of determining if the transcription of the service order is in a particular format. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 8, the claim relates to the information listed in the different sections of the service order. The claim relates to a mental activity of determining if the service order includes information about the what the customer feels is the issue, testing an verification that the issue has been corrected, the problem with the vehicle, and if the repair has been completed. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 9, the claim relates to what part of the service order was the transcription data and choosing the category of the service order based on how it is classified where the classification includes a standard and non-standard term for the classification. The claim relates to a mental activity of determining the issue with the vehicle based on how the issue was categorized and classified. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 10, the claim relates to if the transcription includes certain parts of speech (verb, pronoun, adjective, or adverb) and/or if the transcription is in a specific language (English, French, Spanish, or German). The claim relates to a mental activity of determining the speech format and/or language of the transcription. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claims 11 and 12, the claim relates to now the category of the service order data is grouped (new tip and plus one). The claims relate to the mental activity of grouping the new categories based on the service order data. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claims 13 and 16, the claims relate to determining the service to be performed by scanning the vehicle for issues. The claim relates to a mental activity of using a scan tool to determine the issue with the vehicle. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 14, the claim relates to identifying the various issues with the vehicle and which order the issues need to be worked on. The claim relates to a mental activity of determining the issues with the vehicle and the order the repairs need to be made. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 15, the claim relates to identifying the trouble codes related to the issues with the vehicle where the trouble codes are different for different issues. The claim relates to a mental activity of determining the issues with the vehicle based on the trouble codes. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 16, the claim relates to using additional information collected related to the vehicle and added to the service order and using the additional data to update the service data. The claim relates to a mental activity of using information gathered for the service order to update further service data. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 17, the claim relates to generating the service order based on the tagged data and including and inserting predetermined information. The claim relates to a mental activity of including tagged data and predetermined information into the service order. No additional limitations are present.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowed if the 35 USC 101 rejections above are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 1, 18, and 20 of the current application teaches similar subject matter as the prior art of Tewari et al. (US 2012/0303662), Wang (US 2013/0246135), and Stanek et al. (US 2014/0324275). The prior art, alone or in combination teaches “receiving, at one or more processors, vehicle service data corresponding to previously serviced vehicles; generating, at the one or more processors, metadata corresponding to the identified textual content; classifying, at the one or more processors, the metadata as a cluster within a particular category of vehicle service data clusters; generating, at the one or more processors, vehicle service content based on the metadata, the vehicle service content include a usage value corresponding to the usage data identified within the textual content; receiving, at the one or more processors from a vehicle service tool, a request including the symptom identifier and the vehicle identifier; and transmitting, by the one or more processors in response to the request, the vehicle service content to a communication network for transmission to the vehicle service tool” as recited in claims 1 and 20 and “one or more processors; and non-transitory computer readable memory storing program instructions, wherein execution of the program instructions by the one or more processors causes the computing system to perform functions comprising: receiving, at the one or more processors, vehicle service data corresponding to previously serviced vehicles; generating, at the one or more processors, metadata corresponding to the identified textual content; classifying, at the one or more processors, the metadata as a cluster within a particular category of vehicle service data clusters; generating, at the one or more processors, vehicle service content based on the metadata, the vehicle service content include a usage value corresponding to the usage data identified within the textual content; receiving, at the one or more processors from a vehicle service tool, a request including the symptom identifier and the vehicle identifier; and transmitting, by the one or more processors in response to the request, the vehicle service content to a communication network for transmission to the vehicle service tool” as recited in claim 18. However, the prior art fails to teach “identifying, at the one or more processors using natural language processing, textual content within the vehicle service data, wherein the textual content indicates a vehicle identifier, a symptom identifier corresponding to a vehicle symptom, service information corresponding to the vehicle symptom, and usage data corresponding to multiple vehicles identifiable by the vehicle identifier” as recited in claims 1, 18, and 20.
Claims 2-17 and 19 would be allowable for being dependent on an allowable base claim if the 35 USC 101 rejections above are overcome.
Cited Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Coard (US 2015/0012169) discloses pre-evaluation vehicle diagnostic and repair cost estimations.
Merg (US 9,201,930) discloses providing an auto-generated repair-hint to a vehicle repair tool.
Rajpathak et al. (US 2016/0267723) discloses modifying vehicle fault diagnosis based on statistical analysis of past service inquiries.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATWANT K SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, Paras D Shah can be reached at (571}270-1650. 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.
/SATWANT K SINGH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2653
Prosecution Insights