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 .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/954,748 filed on 11/21/2024.
• Claims 1-5, 7-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL in response the Remarks and Amendments filed on 05/08/2026.
• The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Kai Wang.
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 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The complete step-by-step analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 is provided below:
STEP One: Do Claims 1 and 17 Fall Within One of The Statutory Categories?
Yes, claims 1 and 17 are directed towards a method of servicing vehicle.
STEP Two A , Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, claim 1 and 17 recite “determining if the part is acceptable based upon the part data”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person look at the collected part data and make a simple judgement. Thus, the claim 1 and 17 recite a mental process.
STEP Two A , Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claims recite additional elements of receiving an indication of a possible failure of a part; scanning a unique identifier of the part without part removal, the unique identifier is provided by a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag and is associated with part data relating to the part's original production characteristics which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data. The claim further recite additional element of leaving the part installed and undisturbed if the part is acceptable and continuing diagnosis of the failure based upon an evaluation of other than the possible failure of the part which is a form of insignificant post-solution activity. And the claim language keep silent on what is the action after the part is identified as a failure. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
STEP Two B: Does the Claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant pre-solution and post-solution activities. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims 2-5, 7-16 are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for the rejection of claim 1 and 17.
Claim 2-5, 7-9, 13-14 merely further specifies what is the part ,and where is installed and how to collect the part data. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant pre-solution activity. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Claims 10-12, 15-16 merely further specifies how to determine the part is acceptable or not. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person look at the collected part data and make a simple judgement. Thus, the claim 10-12, 15-16 recite a mental process.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed (US20070005202A1) in view of Bouhrara (US 20210172880 A1), further in view of Kuphaldt (Applied Industrial Electricity, 2020).
Regarding Claim 1:
Breed teaches:
A method of servicing a vehicle, comprising: receiving an indication of a possible failure of a part; (Breed, para[39], “a diagnostic system arranged on the vehicle to determine whether any of the components is operating non-optimally, is expected to fail … and generate an output indicative”)
the unique identifier is provided by a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag and is associated with part data relating to the part's original production characteristics; (Breed, para[259], “tire identification makes use of an RFID tag”, and para [630], “a tire pressure and temperature sensor based on SAW but using a companion RFID device”) Examiner note: a tire pressure is a tire data related to the tire original production characteristics such as rated pressure that ensure the tire’s performance and safety.
determining if the part is acceptable based upon the part data; (Breed, para[225],” determine from the relevant digital data whether the tire is functioning properly or whether it requires balancing, additional air, or perhaps replacement.”)
Breed does not explicitly teach, but Bouhrara teaches:
scanning a unique identifier of the part without part removal, (Bouhrara, para [79], “the component identifier module 54 of the identifier module 50 may scan the identifying indicia 195 of one or more composite components 32… the component identifier module 54 may scan an RFID tag …and identify that the composite component 32 is a vehicle chassis”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an information processing device from Breed to include these above teachings from Bouhrara in order to include scanning a unique identifier of the part without part removal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect and evaluate damage in vehicle components more accurately and reliably.
Breed does not explicitly teach, but Kuphaldt teaches:
and leaving the part installed and undisturbed if the part is acceptable and continuing diagnosis of the failure based upon an evaluation of other than the possible failure of the part.( Kuphaldt teaches a process of elimination method of troubleshooting the radio failure as an example in page 3-4, “Example: The radio works fine on the AM band, but not on the FM band… Eliminate from the list of possible causes, anything in the radio necessary for the AM band’s function. Whatever the source of the problem is, it is specific to the FM band and not to the AM band. This eliminates the audio amplifier, speakers, fuse, power supply, and almost all external wiring. Being able to eliminate sections of the system as possible failures reduces the scope of the problem and makes the rest of the troubleshooting procedure more efficient.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an information processing device from Breed to include these above teachings from Kuphaldt in order to include leaving the part installed and undisturbed if the part is acceptable and continuing diagnosis of the failure based upon an evaluation of other than the possible failure of the part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “makes the rest of the troubleshooting procedure more efficient” (Kuphaldt, Description).
Claim(s) 2-5, 7-9, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed (US20070005202A1) in view of Bouhrara (US 20210172880 A1), further in view of Kuphaldt (Applied Industrial Electricity, 2020) and Kobayashi (JP2020145783A).
Regarding Claim 2:
Breed in view of Bouhrara, Kuphaldt, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Breed does not explicitly teach, but Kobayashi teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the part is a wire harness. (Breed, para[06], “a wire harness, on which RFID tags are attached to the ends of the plurality of wires, can be placed;”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an information processing device from Breed to include these above teachings from Kobayashi in order to include wherein the part is a wire harness. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “wire harnesses can be easily inspected”. (Kobayashi, Description).
Regarding Claim 3:
Breed in view of Bouhrara, Kuphaldt and Kobayashi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Breed teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the part data includes at least one of a product feature class including whether a component is acceptable or unacceptable, captured product image associated with the product feature class, a final verdict for the finished wire harness, and an inspection log. (Breed, para[39], “a diagnostic system arranged on the vehicle to determine whether any of the components is operating non-optimally, is expected to fail … and generate an output indicative”, and para [224], “the occurrence of a sensor or system failure can be immediately logged to form a frequency of failure log ”)
Regarding Claim 4:
Breed in view of Bouhrara, Kuphaldt and Kobayashi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3. Breed does not explicitly teach, but Kuphaldt teaches:
The method of claim 3, wherein the product feature class relates to an inspection of at least one of a crimp connector, an endcap, a tie wrap, a sleeve, a crimp, a jacket, a lug, a heated heat shrink, welding, and a shield braid.( Kuphaldt, page 10, “Improper wire termination lugs (such as a compression-style connector crimped on the end of a solid wire”)
Regarding Claim 5:
Breed in view of Bouhrara, Kuphaldt and Kobayashi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3. Breed teaches:
The method of claim 3, wherein the wire harness is installed into an assembly including a battery pack and an electric motor prior to performing the scanning step. (Breed, para[589], “This circuit requires power as described herein which can be supplied by a battery”, and para [781], “connected to the appropriate motors by wires”, and para [743], “Such transducers or receivers 344-349 may be of the type which emit or receive a continuous signal, a time varying signal (such as a capacitor or electric field sensor) or a spatial varying signal such as in a scanning system.”)
Regarding Claim 7:
Breed in view of Bouhrara, Kuphaldt and Kobayashi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. Breed teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein the assembly is installed into a vehicle. (Breed, para[174], “assembly of parts which is mounted to or a part of a motor vehicle and which is capable of emitting a signal representative of its operating state”)
Regarding Claim 8:
Breed in view of Bouhrara, Kuphaldt and Kobayashi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7. Breed teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the scanning step is performed before the step of installing the wire harness into the vehicle. (Breed, para[743], “ a scanning system”, para[376], “RFID sensors and may be powered or unpowered and may transmit their information through a wire harness”) Examiner note: It is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the scan step of the wire harness before or after the installation as appropriate.
Regarding Claim 9:
Breed in view of Bouhrara, Kuphaldt and Kobayashi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7. Breed teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the scanning step is performed after the step of installing the wire harness into the vehicle. (Breed, para[743], “ a scanning system”, para[376], “RFID sensors and may be powered or unpowered and may transmit their information through a wire harness”) Examiner note: It is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the scan step of the wire harness before or after the installation as appropriate.
Regarding Claim 13:
Breed in view of Bouhrara, Kuphaldt and Kobayashi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. Breed teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein the scanning step includes simultaneously scanning other RFID tags of the other components.( Breed, para[423], “transmit the RF signals simultaneously”)
Regarding Claim 14:
Breed in view of Bouhrara, Kuphaldt and Kobayashi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Breed teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the determining step includes accessing the part data in cloud-based storage. ( Breed, para[820], “diagnostic information, may be achieved via a satellite and/or via the Internet.”)
Claim(s) 10, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed (US20070005202A1) in view of Bouhrara (US 20210172880 A1), further in view of Kuphaldt (Applied Industrial Electricity, 2020) and Kobayashi (JP2020145783A), Houston (US10351081B1).
Regarding Claim 10:
Breed in view of Bouhrara, Kuphaldt and Kobayashi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3. Breed does not explicitly teach, but Houston teaches:
The method of claim 3, wherein the determining step includes checking if the final verdict of the wire harness is a pass. (Houston, Col.1, line 62, “the wire - harness is properly installed”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an information processing device from Breed to include these above teachings from Houston in order to include wherein the determining step includes checking if the final verdict of the wire harness is a pass. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the work involved in installing the wire - harness is greatly simplified” (Houston, Description).
Regarding Claim 15:
Breed in view of Bouhrara, Kuphaldt and Kobayashi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3. Breed does not explicitly teach, but Houston teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the determining step includes determining the part data is unacceptable, and comprising a step of removing and inspecting the wire harness. (Houston, Col.3, line 12-14, “ Failed wire - harnesses are typically replaced by hand and require care in installation . A … wire - harness may be removed”, Col.3, line 63, “wire assemblies to have different color wires to aide in correct routing and inspection”)
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed (US20070005202A1) in view of Bouhrara (US 20210172880 A1), further in view of Kuphaldt (Applied Industrial Electricity, 2020) and Kobayashi (JP2020145783A), Pearce (US20100114827A1).
Regarding Claim 11:
Breed in view of Bouhrara, Kuphaldt and Kobayashi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3. Breed does not explicitly teach, but Pearce teaches:
The method of claim 3, wherein the determining step includes checking a part revision in the inspection log.( Pearce, para [40], “The authorization processor 34 is further operable to process the specification database 12 so as to ensure that each revision made to a particular part does not violate the specifications for the part.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an information processing device from Breed to include these above teachings from Pearce in order to include wherein the determining step includes checking if the final verdict of the wire harness is a pass. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “each revision made to a particular part does not violate the specifications for the part” (Pearce, Description).
Regarding Claim 12:
Breed in view of Kuphaldt, Pearce, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3. Breed does not explicitly teach, but Pearce teaches:
The method of claim 11, wherein the determining step includes checking the part revision against part revision data of other components in the assembly.( Pearce, para [40], “The authorization processor 34 is further operable to process the specification database 12 so as to ensure that each revision made to a particular part does not violate the specifications for the part. Additionally, the authorization processor 34 is operable to process the other parts to ensure that the revisions, though made within specification of the revised part, do not cause the project to fall outside of the project specification.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an information processing device from Breed to include these above teachings from Pearce in order to include wherein the determining step includes checking if the final verdict of the wire harness is a pass. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “each revision made to a particular part does not violate the specifications for the part” (Pearce, Description).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed (US20070005202A1) in view of Bouhrara (US 20210172880 A1), further in view of Kuphaldt (Applied Industrial Electricity, 2020) and Rachwalski (US20080117048A1).
Regarding Claim 16:
Breed in view of Bouhrara, Kuphaldt, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Breed does not explicitly teach, but Rachwalski teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the unique identifier is at least partially obstructed and inaccessible in that there is no line of sight to the unique identifier. (Rachwalski, para [04], “Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags on individual product items”, and para [07], “the RFID tags is at least partially obstructed”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an information processing device from Breed to include these above teachings from Rachwalski in order to include wherein the unique identifier is at least partially obstructed and inaccessible in that there is no line of sight to the unique identifier. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to trace the RFID items more accurately and reliably.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed (US20070005202A1) in view of Kuphaldt (Applied Industrial Electricity, 2020), further in view of Rachwalski (US20080117048A1).
Regarding Claim 17:
Breed teaches:
A method of servicing a vehicle, comprising: receiving an indication of a possible failure of a part; (Breed, para[39], “a diagnostic system arranged on the vehicle to determine whether any of the components is operating non-optimally, is expected to fail … and generate an output indicative”)
acquiring a unique identifier of the part without part removal, the unique identifier associated with part data relating to the part's original production characteristics, (Breed, para[259], “tire identification makes use of an RFID tag”, and para [630], “a tire pressure and temperature sensor based on SAW but using a companion RFID device”) Examiner note: a tire pressure is a tire data related to the tire original production characteristics such as rated tire pressure that ensure the tire’s performance and safety.
determining if the part is acceptable based upon the part data; (Breed, para[225],” determine from the relevant digital data whether the tire is functioning properly or whether it requires balancing, additional air, or perhaps replacement.”)
Breed does not explicitly teach, but Rachwalski teaches:
wherein the unique identifier is at least partially obstructed and inaccessible in that there is no line of sight to the unique identifier; (Rachwalski, para [04], “Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags on individual product items”, and para [07], “the RFID tags is at least partially obstructed”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an information processing device from Breed to include these above teachings from Rachwalski in order to include wherein the unique identifier is at least partially obstructed and inaccessible in that there is no line of sight to the unique identifier. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to trace the RFID items more accurately and reliably.
Breed does not explicitly teach, but Kuphaldt teaches:
and leaving the part installed and undisturbed if the part is acceptable and continuing diagnosis of the failure based upon an evaluation of other than the possible failure of the part.( Kuphaldt teaches a process of elimination method of troubleshooting the radio failure as an example in page 3-4, “Example: The radio works fine on the AM band, but not on the FM band… Eliminate from the list of possible causes, anything in the radio necessary for the AM band’s function. Whatever the source of the problem is, it is specific to the FM band and not to the AM band. This eliminates the audio amplifier, speakers, fuse, power supply, and almost all external wiring. Being able to eliminate sections of the system as possible failures reduces the scope of the problem and makes the rest of the troubleshooting procedure more efficient.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an information processing device from Breed to include these above teachings from Kuphaldt in order to include leaving the part installed and undisturbed if the part is acceptable and continuing diagnosis of the failure based upon an evaluation of other than the possible failure of the part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “makes the rest of the troubleshooting procedure more efficient” (Kuphaldt, Description).
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101. Applicant argued that claim 1 is not an abstract idea of mental process. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 and 17 recite “determining if the part is acceptable based upon the part data”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person look at the collected part data and make a simple judgement. Thus, the claim 1 and 17 recite a mental process. The claims recite additional elements of receiving an indication of a possible failure of a part; scanning a unique identifier of the part without part removal, the unique identifier is provided by a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag and is associated with part data relating to the part's original production characteristics which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data. The claim further recite additional element of leaving the part installed and undisturbed if the part is acceptable and continuing diagnosis of the failure based upon an evaluation of other than the possible failure of the part which is a form of insignificant post-solution activity. And the claim language keep silent on what is the action after the part is identified as a failure. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to the abstract idea. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant pre-solution and post-solution activities. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 (See applicant’s response, page 11, “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103”) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights