DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the application filed 11/13/2024, with claims 1-15 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/13/2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because it appears the S590 should recite -- Transmits vehicle status information result--. See pg. 14, lines 24-25 of the instant application specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 3, 4, and 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.
This phrases “transmitting the status information data to an outside” in claim 1 and “transmitting the status information data to the outside” in claims 3, 4 and 6 renders these claims indefinite. More specifically, the term “outside” is not defined by the claims and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, the term “outside” as claimed is unclear because it appears that the component in which the status information data is being transmitted to is omitted from the claim language, which is confusing. What component is receiving the status information data. Appropriate correction is required. No new matter.
Furthermore, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Therefore, for the purpose of compact prosecution the claims are rejected below as best understood by the Examiner in view of the above 35 USC § 112 rejection.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
A vehicle status monitoring method comprising:
receiving status information data;
determining whether a status information collection device is operating normally or abnormally; and
outputting a result of judging status information of a vehicle using the status information data when it is determined that the status information collection device is operating normally, and transmitting the status information data to an outside when it is determined that the status information collection device is operating abnormally.
Step 1: Statutory category- Yes
The claim recites an method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes.
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/ or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites:
A vehicle status monitoring method comprising:
determining whether a status information collection device is operating
normally or abnormally;
The “determining” limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, but for the “collection device” language, the claim encompasses that the user determines from the collected data that a vehicle component is operating normally or abnormally. The mere recitation of outputting a result of judging status information of a vehicle using the status information data when it is determined that the status information collection device is operating normally, and transmitting the status information data to an outside when it is determined that the status information collection device is operating abnormally does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processing grouping because the claim language does not positively recite controlling the subject vehicle (emphasis added).
Thus, claim 1 recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04( d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements of:
receiving status information data [data gathering—a pre-solution activity];
outputting a result of judging status information of a vehicle using the status information data when it is determined that the status information collection device is operating normally [data gathering—post-solution activity], and
transmitting the status information data to an outside when it is determined that the status information collection device is operating abnormally [data gathering—post-solution activity]
These additional elements are merely insignificant extra solution activities. These claims does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. These additional limitations are no more than mere data gathering.
Accordingly, even in combination, this additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Respectively, dependent claims 2-6 and 8-15, as a whole, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding claim 7. Claim 7 is the system that performs the vehicle status monitoring method of claim 1; therefore, claim 7 is rejected under the same rationale of claim 1.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive Concept: - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the claim(s) is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in claims 2-6 and 8-15 amount to no more than mere data gathering step, data manipulation, insignificant extra solution activity and/or data output. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., data manipulation and/or data output to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B, MPEP 2106.0S(f).
Thus, these claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubo et al., US 2023/0322240 hereinafter “Kubo”.
Claim 1. Kubo teaches a vehicle status monitoring method comprising:
receiving status information data (see fig. 1 which illustrates the “Abnormality detection device” receiving status information data from the measuring device. Also, fig. 2 illustrates data being received at S1.);
determining whether a status information collection device is operating normally or abnormally (see fig. 1 along with [0031]-[0047] which teaches an “Abnormality degree calculation”. While an “Abnormality determination part” is taught in fig. 1 along with [0048]-[0049]. Fig. 2 illustrates determining whether a vehicle signal is normal and abnormal); and
outputting a result of judging status information of a vehicle using the status information data when it is determined that the status information collection device is operating normally (fig. 2 teaches outputting a result when normal at step 8. While both fig.1 and 2 illustrates an abnormal result send to the notification device. ), and
transmitting the status information data to an outside when it is determined that the status information collection device is operating abnormally ([0055] reads on this element as such—“The notification device 30 is composed of a display capable of outputting an image, a speaker capable of outputting voice or sound, or the like. The notification device 30: acquires a result determined by the abnormality determination part 24; and notifies a user of the acquired determination result.” ).
Claim 5. Kubo teaches the vehicle status monitoring method of claim 4, and further teaches further comprising: stopping an operation of judging the status information of the vehicle (fig. 1 illustrates once the status is determine then the process is stopped and a result is transmitted).
Claim 6. Kubo teaches the vehicle status monitoring method of claim 1 and further teaches, wherein the transmitting the status information data to the outside when it is determined that the status collection device is operating abnormally (as illustrated in figs. 1 and 2), includes stopping an operation of judging the status information of the vehicle and transmitting the status information data to the outside when a preset error occurs in the status information collection device or when a voltage or current applied to the status information collection device is out of a preset range (fig. 1 illustrates once the status is determine then the process is stopped and a result is transmitted which read on this element. While the concept of a trouble code from the engine is taught in [0022]).
Claims 7, 8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Claessens et al., US 2021/0335061 hereinafter “Claessens”.
Claim 7. Claessens teaches a vehicle status monitoring system including a status information collection device and a central control device equipped in a vehicle, wherein:
the status information collection device outputs a result of judging status information of the vehicle based on status information data of the vehicle when the condition information collection device is normal ([0019] read on this element as such—“In some examples, the method may include determining an estimated time-to-failure associated with the component (e.g., an estimated number of miles, in-service hours, etc. until the component may fail) of the vehicle based at least in part on the first sensor signature, the second sensor signature, and/or the variation and/or association between the first sensor signature and the second sensor signature. This estimated time-to-failure may additionally be output, logged, and/or sent to a remote monitoring system associated with the vehicle.), and
the central control device outputs a result of judging status information of the vehicle based on the status information data of the vehicle when the status information collection device is abnormal ([0092] reads on this element as such—“At operation 518, the method 500 may include performing a second action. In some examples, the second action may include determining and/or outputting an operating status associated with the component of the vehicle.” The concept of an abnormal brake sound is taught in [0094]-[0098]).
Claim 8. Claessens teaches the vehicle status monitoring system of claim 7 and further teaches, wherein the central control device transmits a status information data request signal and a vehicle status information judgment operation control signal to the status information collection device when the status information collection device is abnormal ([0038]—reads on this element as such—“…if the array of sensors comprises an array of microphones for capturing audio data produced by vehicle components, then the audio data captured by the array of microphones may be used to determine a location of the component that produced the audio data and/or to discriminate between different components to which the audio data could be attributable. For instance, if a first microphone of the array is closer to the component than a second microphone of the array, then first audio data captured by the first microphone may include a stronger audio signal than second audio data captured by the second microphone, and so on. As such, based on the differing signal strength in the first audio data, the second audio data, third audio data, and so on, a direction and/or location of the component that produced the audio data may be determined.” The concept of using the audio sound signal to determine abnormal brakes is taught in [0094]-[0098]. Taken together the at least cited section reads on this element).
Claim 10. Claessens teaches the vehicle status monitoring system of claim 7 and further teaches, wherein the central control device transmits a status confirmation signal to the status information collection device, and determines that a failure has occurred in the status information collection device when a confirmation response signal is not received from the status information collection device within a preset time or when a confirmation response signal is not received even after transmitting the status confirmation signal more than a preset number of times ([0076] along with [0079] reads on this element as such—“The log data 448 may include historical and/or pre-recorded sensor data obtained from a computing system of a vehicle (e.g., vehicle 100 and/or other vehicles, etc.), which captured and stored the sensor data during operation. The log data 448 may include raw sensor data and/or processed sensor data.” Fig. 7 further reads on this element. While [0100] further reads on this element in us previously stored data. Taken together the cited section reads on this element…Additionally, in at least some examples, the fault log 456 may be reported by the vehicle 402 to the computing devices 440. This reporting may occur periodically (e.g., daily, hourly, etc.) or upon the occurrence of certain events (e.g., detection of a collision, transit to a service location, detection of a change in operating status of a component, change in a sensor signature associated with a component, etc.”).
Claim 11. Claessens teaches the vehicle status monitoring system of claim 7 and further teaches, wherein the central control device determines that a failure has occurred in the status information collection device when the vehicle status information judged by the status information collection device and the vehicle status information judged by the central control device are different ([0078] reads on this element as such—“The sensor signatures 454 may include various types of sensor signatures for various components of vehicles. For instance, the sensor signatures 454 may include one or more audio/acoustic sensor signatures associated with a component of a vehicle, one or more image sensor signatures associated with the same component and/or a different component (e.g., HVAC system). The sensor signatures may be based on sensor data of a single sensor modality (e.g., audio data, or image data, or IMU data, etc.) or they may be based on data of multiple different sensor modalities (e.g., audio data, image data, IMU data, and/or other sensor data). In some examples, the sensor signatures 454 may include one or more initial or baseline sensor signatures associated with components of one or more vehicles, and may additionally, or alternatively, include one or more subsequent or progressive sensor signatures associated with components taken throughout the life of the component. In that case, the subsequent sensor signatures can be compared to the initial sensor signatures to determine change in operating status of the respective components. In this way, the sensor signatures 454 may be used to determine operating statuses associated with components of the vehicle 402, or other vehicles. In some examples, the sensor signatures 454 may be sent to the vehicle computing devices 404 via the networks 438.”).
Claim 12. Claessens teaches the vehicle status monitoring system of claim 11 and further teaches, wherein the central control device determines a status of the vehicle based on the vehicle status information judged by the central control device when the vehicle status information judged by the status information collection device is different from the vehicle status information judged by the central control device ([0078]-[0079]—reads on this element as such—“In that case, the subsequent sensor signatures can be compared to the initial sensor signatures to determine change in operating status of the respective components. In this way, the sensor signatures 454 may be used to determine operating statuses associated with components of the vehicle 402, or other vehicles. In some examples, the sensor signatures 454 may be sent to the vehicle computing devices 404 via the networks 438).
Claim 13. Claessens teaches the vehicle status monitoring system of claim 12 and further teaches, wherein the central control device transmits the vehicle status information judged by the central control device to the status information collection device ([0079]—“Additionally, in at least some examples, the fault log 456 may be reported by the vehicle 402 to the computing devices 440. This reporting may occur periodically (e.g., daily, hourly, etc.) or upon the occurrence of certain events (e.g., detection of a collision, transit to a service location, detection of a change in operating status of a component, change in a sensor signature associated with a component, etc.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo in view of Claessens.
Claim 2. Kubo teaches the vehicle status monitoring method of claim 1; however, Kubo is silent on the term sensing data. Yet, Claessens teaches wherein the receiving of the status information data includes receiving at least one of component status information data and sensing data collected while the vehicle is driving ([0058] reads on this element as—“For instance, the monitoring component 430 may receive audio data from the sensor data 436 captured by an audio sensor (e.g., microphone) of the sensor system(s) 406, and predict a component of the vehicle 402 associated with the audio data, a location of the component associated with the audio data, and/or an operating status associated with the component. The prediction can be made based on a single audio data recording or multiple audio data recordings.” While [0062] reads on this element as such—“The memory 418 may also store sensor data 436 captured by one or more sensors of the sensor systems 406 of the vehicle 402. The sensor data 436 may include raw sensor data (e.g., sensor data that is captured by a sensor of the vehicle 402) and/or processed sensor data (e.g., sensor data that is processed by the filtering component 432 after being captured by a sensor). The sensor data 436 may be used to determine one or more of the sensor signatures 434 described above. Additionally, or alternatively, the sensor data 436 may be used to determine operating statuses associated with components of the vehicle 402. In some examples, the sensor data 436 may be sent to the computing devices 440 via the networks 438 to be used as log data 448 and/or training data 452”. While [0076] teaches –“The log data 448 may include historical and/or pre-recorded sensor data obtained from a computing system of a vehicle (e.g., vehicle 100 and/or other vehicles, etc.), which captured and stored the sensor data during operation.” Taken together para. [0058], [0062], [0076] and fig. 5 reads on this element).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teaching of Claessens with the invention of Kubo because such combination would provide failure or anomalous measurement detected and an identifier of the component(s)/system (s) involved ( e.g., a sensor signature associated with a failed operating status of a vehicle component), (see [0079], Claessens).
Claim 3. Kubo teaches the vehicle status monitoring method of claim 1; however, Kubo is silent on the term sensing data. Yet, Claessens teaches comprising: transmitting the status information data to the outside and receiving status information of a vehicle from the outside when it is determined that the status collection device is operating abnormally ([0091] along with [0099] reads on this element—“At operation 516, the method 500 may include performing a first action. In some examples, performing the first action may include sending a notification to a remote computing system that an operating status of the vehicle component has changed, but that the change is not significant. Additionally, or alternatively, the first action may include logging or storing the second sensor signature and/or the second data in a memory of the vehicle (e.g., memory 418 of vehicle computing device 404) or a memory of a computing system and/or device that is remote from the vehicle and accessible by the vehicle (e.g., memory 444 of computing device 440)….The sensor data may be received at a computing device of the vehicle, such as vehicle computing device 404, and/or at a remote computing device, such as computing devices 440. Additionally, or alternatively, the sensor data may be stored in a memory of the vehicle computing device 404 and later uploaded to the computing devices 440.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teaching of Claessens with the invention of Kubo because such combination would provide failure or anomalous measurement detected and an identifier of the component(s)/system (s) involved ( e.g., a sensor signature associated with a failed operating status of a vehicle component), (see [0079], Claessens).
Claim 4. Kubo teaches the vehicle status monitoring method of claim 1; however, Kubo is silent on the term sensing data. Yet, Claessens teaches wherein the transmitting the status information data to the outside when it is determined that the status collection device is operating abnormally, includes:
receiving at least one of a status information data request signal and a vehicle status information judgment operation control signal from the outside ([0099] reads on this element as such—“The sensor data may be received at a computing device of the vehicle, such as vehicle computing device 404, and/or at a remote computing device, such as computing devices 440. Additionally, or alternatively, the sensor data may be stored in a memory of the vehicle computing device 404 and later uploaded to the computing devices 440.”); and
transmitting the status information data to the outside ([0091] reads on this element—“At operation 516, the method 500 may include performing a first action. In some examples, performing the first action may include sending a notification to a remote computing system that an operating status of the vehicle component has changed, but that the change is not significant. Additionally, or alternatively, the first action may include logging or storing the second sensor signature and/or the second data in a memory of the vehicle (e.g., memory 418 of vehicle computing device 404) or a memory of a computing system and/or device that is remote from the vehicle and accessible by the vehicle (e.g., memory 444 of computing device 440)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teaching of Claessens with the invention of Kubo because such combination would provide failure or anomalous measurement detected and an identifier of the component(s)/system (s) involved ( e.g., a sensor signature associated with a failed operating status of a vehicle component), (see [0079], Claessens).
Claims 9, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claessens in view of Kubo.
Claim 9. Claessens teaches the vehicle status monitoring system of claim 8; however, Claessens does not explicitly teach stop an operation of judging. However, Kubo teaches wherein the vehicle status information judgment operation control signal is a control signal to stop an operation of judging the status information of the vehicle (fig. 1 illustrates once the status is determine then the process is stopped and a result is transmitted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teaching of Kubo with the invention of Claessen because such combination would provide calculation for an abnormality degree of the vehicle signal based on the calculated error and the learned information, (see Abstract, Kubo).
Claim 14. Claessens teaches the vehicle status monitoring system of claim 7 and further teaches that the status information collection device transmits the status information data to the central control device; however, Claessens does not explicitly teach stop an operation of judging. Yet Kudo teaches wherein the status information collection device transmits the status information data to the central control device when a preset error code occurs and stops the vehicle status information judgment operation ([0022] teaches –“a trouble code from an engine control unit” and fig. 1 illustrates once the status is determine then the process is stopped and a result is transmitted which read on this element).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teaching of Kubo with the invention of Claessen because such combination would provide calculation for an abnormality degree of the vehicle signal based on the calculated error and the learned information, (see Abstract, Kubo).
Claim 15. Claessens teaches the vehicle status monitoring system of claim 7 and further teaches, wherein when a voltage or current applied to the status information collection device is out of a preset range, the status information collection device transmits the status information data to the central control device and stops the vehicle status information judgment operation ([00178] along with [0090] reads on this element as such—“The techniques described herein are configurable for the monitoring of virtually any
component of a vehicle by using live sensor data ( e.g., audio data, accelerometer data, voltage measurements, current measurements, imaged data, piezoelectric sensor data, pressure
data, temperature data, etc.) to determine sensor signatures associated with components, and then evaluate those sensor signatures over time to accurately monitor vehicle health….At operation 514, the method 500 includes determining whether the association exists (e.g., whether a variation is greater than a threshold variation, whether a similarity is within a threshold range, etc.). If an association between the first sensor signature and the second sensor signature does not exist, is insignificant, or is otherwise not within a threshold range, then the method 500 may
proceed on to operation 516.”).
Claessens does not explicitly teach stop an operation of judging; however, Kubo teaches stopping the judgment operation (fig. 1 illustrates once the status is determine then the process is stopped and a result is transmitted which read on this element).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teaching of Kubo with the invention of Claessen because such combination would provide calculation for an abnormality degree of the vehicle signal based on the calculated error and the learned information, (see Abstract, Kubo).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANA D THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 - 5.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
C. E. Lin, Y. -S. Shiao, C. -C. Li, S. -H. Yang, S. -H. Lin and C. -Y. Lin, "Real-Time Remote Onboard Diagnostics Using Embedded GPRS Surveillance Technology," in IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 1108-1118, May 2007. The reference teaches communication configuration between the OBD and ITS applications.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/A.D.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RUSSELL FREJD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661