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 § 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.
Claim 1-10 and 19 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the vehicle system" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 8-9 and 19, the claim limitation “… inspect one or more of service brakes including …” renders the claim(s) indefinite because it is not clear the meaning of “service brakes”, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purpose, the claim limitation has been interpreted as “… inspect one or more of service including …”.
Claims 2-7 and 10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim recites vehicle inspection system performing a series of functions. Therefore, it is a product.
The claim recites an abstract idea. The claim recites using inspector inputs to determine a state of the vehicle components. The limitations, as drafted, is a product that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “communication device”, “a processor”, and “mobile electronic device”, “vehicle components “, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Such mental observations or evaluations fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional element - receive mobile electronic device inspector inputs during inspection of vehicle components. This is a data gathering step. The hardware in this step is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, that is no indication of improvement to any other technology or technical field, (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), or applying or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), or effecting a transformation (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a communication device, a processor, a mobile electronic device, and vehicle components to perform determination step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05) cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and is not patent eligible.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the same analysis as given in claim 1.
Claims 2-4 and 12-14 recite a determining step that can be performed in the mind. The claims recite additional element “inspector inputs”. This is a data gathering step.
Claims 5 and 15 recite a monitoring step that can be performed in the mind.
The hardware in claims 6-7, 10, 16-17, and 20 are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 recite an inspecting step that can be performed in the mind.
The additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a generic component or computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
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) 1-2 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laughlin et al (US 20190017945 A1), hereinafter Laughlin.
-Regarding claim 1, Laughlin discloses a vehicle inspection system for monitoring inspection of a vehicle by an inspector, the vehicle system comprising (Abstract; FIGS. 1-15;
PNG
media_image1.png
660
447
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0143]-[0144]): a communication device (FIG. 12, communication unit 1210; [0068]); and a processor electrically coupled to the communication device (FIG. 3, computer system 328; FIG. 12; [0111]), wherein the processor is configured to receive mobile electronic device inspector inputs during inspection of vehicle components (FIGS. 1-2; FIG. 3, mobile inspection device 302, operator 300, input 308, note 314, item 312; [0044], “a window, a door, … , an air duct, a monument, a rail, a skin panel, a wheel, a tire, an engine housing …”; [0065], “… generate user input 308 for creating note 314 …”; [0067]; FIGS. 4-7), and wherein the processor is configured to use the received, mobile electronic device inspector inputs to determine a state of the vehicle components (FIGS. 1-3, 9, 11; [0028]; [0058], “a description of the inconsistency such as a scratch, a stain, a smudge, a part that does not work, an incorrect part,”; [0061]; [0066]; [0073]).
-Regarding claim 11, Laughlin discloses system comprising a mobile device and non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon (Abstract; FIGS. 1-15; [0143]-[0144]): wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor of the mobile device ([0111]-[0112]), cause the processor to receive mobile device inspector inputs during inspection of vehicle components (FIGS. 1-2; FIG. 3, mobile inspection device 302, operator 300, input 308, note 314, item 312; [0044], “a window, a door, … , an air duct, a monument, a rail, a skin panel, a wheel, a tire, an engine housing …”; [0065], “… generate user input 308 for creating note 314 …”; [0067]; FIGS. 4-7), and wherein the processor is configured to use the received, mobile device inspector inputs to determine a state of the vehicle components (FIGS. 1-3, 9, 11; [0028]; [0058], “a description of the inconsistency such as a scratch, a stain, a smudge, a part that does not work, an incorrect part,”; [0061]; [0066]; [0073]).
-Regarding claims 2, and 12, Laughlin discloses the vehicle inspection system of claim 1 and the system of claim 11. Laughlin further discloses wherein the mobile electronic device inspector inputs comprise a plurality of images, and wherein the processor is configured to determine a presence of a vehicle defect from the plurality of images (FIGS. 1-3; [0034]; [0038], “Images 120 may be individual pictures or part of a video”; [0058], “… include at least one of … an image, a video … a description of the inconsistency such as a scratch, a stain, a smudge, a part that does not work, an incorrect part …”; [0043]; [0066]; FIGS. 4-7).
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) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laughlin et al (US 20190017945 A1), hereinafter Laughlin in view of Brandon (US 20140229316 A1).
-Regarding claims 3, and 13, Laughlin discloses the vehicle inspection system of claim 1 and the system of claim 11.
Laughlin does not disclose determine a tire condition from the plurality of images. However, Laughlin does disclose the inputs including items selected for at least one of a wheel, a tire, an engine housing, etc. ([0044]).
In the same field of endeavor, Brandon teaches a vehicle inspection system for carrying out vehicle inspection and providing a quote for repair of a service recipient's vehicle. The vehicle inspection system includes a mobile device having a computer with a processor and a graphical user interface to electronically communicating the condition data and the vehicle identification data to a quoting server (Brandon: Abstract; FIGS. 1-6). Brandon further teaches determine a tire condition from the plurality of images (Brandon: Abstract; FIG. 4; [0043], “… process the resulting images to determine part conditions … communicate with a computing device …”; [0045], “a tire condition field”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lughlin with the teaching of Brandon by determining a tire condition from the plurality of images in order to accurate perform vehicle inspection.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laughlin et al (US 20190017945 A1), hereinafter Laughlin in view of Morrison et al (US 10475208 B1), hereinafter Morrison.
-Regarding claims 4, and 14, Laughlin discloses the vehicle inspection system of claim 1 and the system of claim 11.
Laughlin does not disclose determining a vehicle height from the plurality of images.
In the same field of endeavor, Morrison teaches a vehicle analysis platform to analyze the vehicle based on the plurality of images cap analyze the vehicle based on the plurality of images captured for a vehicle in an inspection bay (Morrison: Abstract; FIGS. 1-7). Morrison further teaches determining a vehicle height from the plurality of images (Morrison: FIG. 1A; Col. 9, lines 21-24, “the vehicle analysis platform may determine dimensions (e.g., length, width, height) of the vehicle … based on … images from the cameras”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Laughlin with the teaching of Morrison by determining a vehicle height in order to ensure that the mechanical devices, sensors, and/or cameras, when controlling the mechanical devices, do not collide with the vehicle, and to identify a make/model of the vehicle (Morrison: FIG. 1A; Col. 9, lines 33-41).
Claim(s) 5-9 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laughlin et al (US 20190017945 A1), hereinafter Laughlin in view of Liu et al (CN 110322670 A), hereinafter Liu.
-Regarding claims 5, and 15, Laughlin discloses the vehicle inspection system of claim 1 and the system of claim 11.
Laughlin does not disclose wherein the vehicle inspection system is configured to monitor an inspector travel path during the inspection of the vehicle without the use of any RFID tags.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches a management system comprising a monitoring center, a monitoring station and front-end system (Liu: Abstract; FIG. 1). The front-end system comprises a an inspection system including an inspection module and an unmanned aerial vehicle (Liu: Page 3, 4th – 5th paragraphs), and the inspection module comprises an APP of handheld mobile terminal and a safety helmet provided with a camera connected with the monitoring station, a GPS locating module (Liu: Page 3, 6th – 7th paragraphs). Liu further teaches monitoring an inspector travel path during the inspection of the vehicle without the use of any RFID tags (Liu: Page 6, Sec. “Example 7”, 3rd paragraph, “APP comprises … inspection path planning and inspectors real-time trace monitoring functions”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Laughlin with the teaching of Liu by monitoring an inspector travel path during the inspection of the vehicle in order to improves the field working efficiency (Liu: Page 6, Sec. “Example 7”, 3rd paragraph).
-Regarding claims 6, and 16, Laughlin discloses the vehicle inspection system of claim 1 and the system of claim 11.
Laughlin does not disclose wherein the communication device comprises one or more of a cellular antenna or a GPS device.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches a management system comprising a monitoring center, a monitoring station and front-end system (Liu: Abstract; FIG. 1). The front-end system comprises a an inspection system including an inspection module and an unmanned aerial vehicle (Liu: Page 3, 4th – 5th paragraphs), and the inspection module comprises an APP of handheld mobile terminal and a safety helmet (Liu: Page 3, 6th paragraph). Liu further wherein the communication device comprises one or more of a cellular antenna or a GPS device (Liu: Page 3, 6th – 7th paragraphs, “a GPS locating module”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Laughlin with the teaching of Liu by using a GPS device in order to perform inspection path planning and inspectors real-time trace monitoring functions (Liu: Page 6, Sec. “Example 7”, 3rd paragraph).
-Regarding claims 7, and 17, Laughlin in view of Liu teaches the vehicle inspection system of claim 6 and the system of claim 16. The combination further teaches an application software on a computer readable medium electrically coupled to the processor (Laughlin: FIG. 12; [0052]; [0112]; [0117]; See also Liu: Page 3, 6th – 7th paragraphs, “handheld terminal APP”).
-Regarding claim 8, Laughlin in view of Liu teaches the vehicle inspection system of claim 7. The combination further teaches a user interface comprises inspector inputs to inspect one or more of service including any trailer brake connections, parking (hand) brake, steering mechanism, lighting devices, reflectors, tires, horn, windshield wipers, rear-vision mirrors, any coupling devices, wheels, rims or emergency equipment (FIGS. 1, 3, graphical user interface 122, 336; FIGS. 4-7; [0044]; [0048]; [0078]).
-Regarding claim 18, Laughlin in view of Liu teaches the system of claim 17. The combination further teaches wherein the application software comprises a user interface configured to receive the mobile device inspector inputs (FIGS. 1, 3, graphical user interface 122, 336; FIGS. 4-7; [0044]; [0048]; [0078]).
-Regarding claims 9 and19, Laughlin in view of Liu teaches the vehicle inspection system of claim 7 and the system of claim 18. The combination further teaches a user interface comprises inspector inputs to inspect one or more of service including any trailer brake connections, parking (hand) brake, steering mechanism, lighting devices, reflectors, tires, horn, windshield wipers, rear-vision mirrors, any coupling devices, wheels, rims or emergency equipment, and wherein the inspector inputs comprise digital images corresponding to each inspector input (FIGS. 1, 3, graphical user interface 122, 336; FIGS. 4-7; [0044]; [0048]; [0078]).
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laughlin et al (US 20190017945 A1), hereinafter Laughlin in view of Singh et al (US 20220222984 A1), hereinafter Singh.
-Regarding claims 10, and 20, Laughlin discloses the vehicle inspection system of claim 1 and the system of claim 11.
Laughlin does not disclose a telematics device coupled to the processor through the communication device.
In the same field of endeavor, Singh teaches a method for generating focused inspection recommendations (Singh: Abstract; FIGS. 1-9B). Singh further teaches a telematics device coupled to the processor through the communication device (Singh: [0007]; [0040]; [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Laughlin with the teaching of Singh by using a telematics device in order to efficiency of the inspection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Isaacs et al (US 20080133080 A1), hereinafter Isaacs teaches a method for remote monitoring of vehicle inspections (Isaacs: Abstract; FIGS. 1-8; [0023]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAO LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-4539. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 8:30-4:30.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. 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.
/XIAO LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights