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 .
ELECTION/RESTRICTION
Claims 1-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/26/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention III. comprising claims 16-20 in the reply filed on 5/26/2026 is acknowledged.
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on 5/26/2026. Applicant withdrew claims 1-15 from consideration. Claims 16-20 are pending and are examined below.
DOUBLE PATENTING
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-20 of U.S. Patent No. US11798325B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are obvious in view of the patented claims. The subject matter of patented claim 13 covers instant claim 16’s subject matter in terms of acquiring current operating parameters; acquiring operating parameters of at least one of similar system or the similar component of one or more other vehicles; and providing an alert based on the foregoing acquired parameters. As instant claim 16 is essentially a broader version of claim 13, claim 16 would have been obvious to arrive at from claim 13 and is therefore not patentably distinct. Furthermore, instant claim 17 corresponds to patented claim 14; instant claim 18 is met by the alert-destination limitation of patented claim 13; instant claim 19 corresponds to patented claims 13 and 15; and instant claim 20 corresponds to patented claims 13 and 18. Accordingly, claims 16-20 are unpatentable over claims 13-20 of US11798325B2.
Claims 16-20 are additionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-20 of U.S. Patent No. US12175813B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are obvious in view of the patented claims. The subject matter of patented claim 14 covers instant claim 16’s subject matter in terms of acquiring current operating parameters; acquiring operating parameters of at least one of similar system or the similar component of one or more other vehicles; and providing an alert based on the foregoing acquired parameters. Furthermore, instant claim 17 corresponds to patented claim 15; instant claim 18 is met by the alert-destination limitation of claim 14; instant claim 19 corresponds to the subject matter of patented claims 14 and 16; and instant claim 20 corresponds to patented claims 14 and 19. Accordingly, claims 16-20 are unpatentable over claims 14-20 of US12175813B2.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claim(s) 16, 19 and 20 is/are objected to because of claim informalities.
As to claim 16, the limitation “generating an alert based on (i) the current operating parameters and (ii) operating parameters of at least one of a similar system or a similar component of one or more other vehicles indicating that the at least one of the vehicle system or the component requires attention” is objected to because it is difficult to parse whether the “indicating” clause refers to all the elements (i)-(ii) or just element (ii). Based on the context of the claim and the specification, the proper interpretation appears to be that an alert is generated based on all elements (i)-(ii) indicating a requirement for attention. The claim should be amended to clarify that this is the case.
As to claim 19, the limitation “generating the alert based on (i) the current operating parameters … and (iii) nominal operating parameters from when at least one of the vehicle system or the component was new indicating that the at least one of the vehicle system or the component requires maintenance or replacement” (emphasis added) is objected to because it is difficult to parse whether the “indicating” clause refers to all the elements (i)-(iii) or just element (iii). Based on the context of the claim and the specification, the proper interpretation appears to be that an alert is generated based on all elements (i)-(iii) indicating a requirement for maintenance or replacement. The claim should be amended to clarify that this is the case.
As to claim 20:
The limitation “(i) the current operating parameters (ii) the operating parameters” is objected to because there is a missing comma separating elements (i) and (ii). Examiner suggests: “(i) the current operating parameters, (ii) the operating parameters”.
The limitation “generating the alert based on (i) the current operating parameters … and (iii) the current operating parameters of the at least one of the similar system or the similar component of the vehicle indicating that the at least one of the vehicle system or the component requires attention” (emphasis added) is objected to because it is difficult to parse whether the “indicating” clause refers to all the elements (i)-(iii) or just element (iii). Based on the context of the claim and the specification, the proper interpretation appears to be that an alert is generated based on all elements (i)-(iii) indicating a requirement for attention. The claim should be amended to clarify that this is the case.
The limitation “generating the alert based on (i) the current operating parameters … and (iii) the current operating parameters of the at least one of the similar system or the similar component of the vehicle” (emphasis added) is objected to because it is difficult to parse how elements (i) and (iii) differ from each other given the similarity in language. Following claim 1, it can be established that element (i) refers to current operating parameters of a vehicle system or component, and (iii) refers to current operating parameters of a similar vehicle system or component. Hence, Examiner suggests amending to the following for clarity: “(i) the current operating parameters of at least one of the vehicle system of the vehicle or the component of the vehicle system”, or otherwise, as long as the claim is clarified. Examiner further suggests cascading such an amendment through the claim set for further clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C § 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 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.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Remboski et al. (US20180268624A1; “Remboski”).
As to independent claim 16, Remboski discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions encoded therein, the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
acquiring current operating parameters of at least one of a vehicle system of a vehicle or a component of the vehicle system (“As provided in FIGS. 1-2, the distributed system 20 includes a plurality of physical systems 24 within the vehicle 22. … Each of the physical systems 24 has a plurality of components 26.” ¶ 53 and FIGS. 1-2. “A first method 200 for monitoring of a vehicle 22 is provided. The first method 200 includes 202 monitoring by a supervisory controller 44 located in the vehicle 22, values of a plurality of operational parameters 52 related to a physical system 24 of the vehicle 22.” ¶ 67 and FIG. 7. See also ¶¶ 57, 76-80.); and
generating an alert based on (i) the current operating parameters and (ii) operating parameters of at least one of a similar system or a similar component of one or more other vehicles indicating that the at least one of the vehicle system or the component requires attention (“[T]he distributed system 20 includes a server 56 located remotely from the vehicle 22 and including a second processor 58 and a second computer readable storage media 60 and is in regular communications with the supervisory controller 44. The server 56 is also in regular communications with a plurality of other vehicles 22, each including at least one system similar or identical to one of the physical systems 24.” ¶ 58 and FIG. 1. “[A] database 74 is located in the first computer readable storage media 48 and stores historical data 76 including values of the plurality of operational parameters 52 from different times. … The database 74 may include operational parameters 52 from a plurality of different vehicles 22.” ¶ 61 and FIG. 3A. “The statistically significant changes may be determined using statistical process control methods, such as a control chart, to determine one or more of the operational parameters 52, which are, alone or in combination, indicative of abnormal operation. One or more indicators or signatures of statistically significant changes may be pre-programmed based on known characteristics of similar physical systems 24, based on … by monitoring the operational parameters 52 from a plurality of different similarly equipped vehicles 22 by the server 56.” ¶ 86. “The distributed mode may allow … data regarding the operation of similar subsystems 30 in a plurality of different vehicles 22 used by the diagnostic module 126 in diagnosing the subsystem 30 as having a failure or degradation. In other words, the distributed mode may allow either or both of comparison module 82 or the diagnostic module 126 to be more accurate by combining information from several different vehicles 22, each having a similar hardware configuration. For example, information regarding transfer functions 80 relating to an engine cooling subsystem 30 may be relevant from a plurality of different vehicles having the same or similar engine types.” ¶ 101. “The second method 300 also includes 312 notifying interested parties of a subsystem 30 having a failure or a degradation associated therewith. According to an aspect, step 310 may include 312A notifying the operator of the vehicle 22 of a failed or degraded subsystem 30 using a using a user signaling device 50. According to an aspect, step 312 may include 312B generating and sending by the server 56 an internet message alerting a maintenance person of the failure.” ¶ 102 and FIG. 11.).
As to claim 17, Remboski discloses: wherein the one or more processors are at least one of (i) positioned on the vehicle in a vehicle controller, (ii) positioned remote from the vehicle in a server, or (iii) positioned remote from the vehicle in a service tool (“[T]he distributed system 20 includes a supervisory controller 44 located in the vehicle 22 and including a first processor 46 and a first computer readable storage media 48 and in communication with the sensors 28 and the actuators 42 and with a user signaling device 50.” ¶ 56 and FIGS. 1-2.).
As to claim 18, Remboski discloses: wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations further comprising providing the alert to at least one of a display or a server (“The second method 300 also includes 312 notifying interested parties of a subsystem 30 having a failure or a degradation associated therewith. According to an aspect, step 310 may include 312A notifying the operator of the vehicle 22 of a failed or degraded subsystem 30 using a using a user signaling device 50. According to an aspect, step 312 may include 312B generating and sending by the server 56 an internet message alerting a maintenance person of the failure.” ¶ 102 and FIG. 11.).
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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 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) 19 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Remboski in view of Rosero (US20120022762A1; “Rosero”).
As to claim 19, Remboski discloses: wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations further comprising generating the alert based on (i) the current operating parameters and (ii) the operating parameters of the at least one of the similar system or the similar component of the one or more other vehicles indicating that the at least one of the vehicle system or the component requires maintenance or replacement (See at least ¶¶ 58, 61, 86, 101, 102 and FIGS. 1, 3A and 11; see claim 1 rejection supra for detailed mapping.).
Remboski fails to explicitly disclose: generating the alert based on (iii) nominal operating parameters from when at least one of the vehicle system or the component was new indicating that the at least one of the vehicle system or the component requires maintenance or replacement.
Nevertheless, Rosero teaches: generating am alert based on (iii) nominal operating parameters from when at least one of the vehicle system or the component was new indicating that the at least one of the vehicle system or the component requires maintenance or replacement (“[T]he memory 304 is structured to store a plurality of standard or ‘reference’ signatures associated with the component 110 in engine system 10 … each reference signature correlates a previously-monitored or previously-modeled property of a reference component with a value within a range of values for one or more operational aspects of the engine system 10 under which the engine system 10 was designed to operate. … [T]he reference signature contains reference information corresponding to the component 110 when the component 110 is known to be without a mechanical fault.” ¶ 26. “[O]ne or more of the reference signatures may further correlate the reference information with engine condition information describing one or more conditions in which the engine system 10 can operate. For example, the engine condition information may indicate an engine system in a new condition.” Emphasis added; ¶ 27. “The analysis system 306 is structured to perform a comparison between the operational signature and the reference signature and determine whether the operational signature has a predefined relationship with the reference signature based on the comparison. If the operational signature is determined to have a predefined relationship with the reference signature, the analysis system 306 estimates that the component 110 has a mechanical fault.” ¶ 28.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Remboski to include the feature of: generating am alert based on (iii) nominal operating parameters from when at least one of the vehicle system or the component was new indicating that the at least one of the vehicle system or the component requires maintenance or replacement, as taught by Rosero, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for detecting a potential failure of a vehicle component “well in advance of it posing a problem” (Rosero, ¶ 4), and to reduce the likelihood of erroneous fault determinations and false alarms (See Rosero, ¶¶ 33, 35).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Remboski in view of Adams et al. (US20210276577A1; “Adams”)
As to claim 20, Remboski discloses: wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations further comprising generating the alert based on (i) the current operating parameters and (ii) the operating parameters of the at least one of the similar system or the similar component of the one or more other vehicles indicating that the at least one of the vehicle system or the component requires maintenance or replacement (See at least ¶¶ 58, 61, 86, 101, 102 and FIGS. 1, 3A and 11; see claim 1 rejection supra for detailed mapping.).
Remboski fails to explicitly disclose: generating the alert based on (iii) the current operating parameters of the at least one of the similar system or the similar component of the vehicle indicating that the at least one of the vehicle system or the component requires attention.
Nevertheless, Adams teaches: generating an alert based on (iii) current operating parameters of at least one of the similar system or the similar component of the vehicle indicating that the at least one of the vehicle system or the component requires attention (“[T]he localization error monitoring component may identify a high residual associated with a particular localizer and/or particular vehicle system (e.g., localization associated with measurement data front one or more wheels—such as wheel encoders, etc.) and may compare the high residual to another residual associated with a same or similar type of localizer and/or a same or similar type of vehicle system (e.g., redundant localizers, sensors, and/or vehicle components or systems). …For example, a vehicle comprising four wheels may include four-wheel speed measurements. The localization error monitoring component may determine that a first wheel speed measurement includes a high residual. The localization error monitoring component may compare the single wheel to the three other wheels to determine that the first wheel includes an erroneous measurement, such as that due to a wheel slip. …. In a similar example, such a system may determine that the one wheel may have a lower pressure than required (causing a discrepancy in the predicted state).” ¶ 21. “[T]he localization error monitoring component may determine residuals 322 associated with the first wheel 304, the second wheel 306, the third wheel 308, and the fourth wheel 310. As illustrated, the residuals 322 may include a value that is equal to or greater than the residual threshold 314, In various examples, the localization error monitoring component may determine the error with the four wheels 304, 306, 308, and 310 at time and may send error data associated therewith to the planner component.” ¶ 83; see also ¶¶ 80-82, 84 and FIG. 3.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Remboski to include the feature of: generating an alert based on (iii) current operating parameters of at least one of the similar system or the similar component of the vehicle indicating that the at least one of the vehicle system or the component requires attention, as taught by Adams, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for distinguishing a genuine component fault from a transient condition or external event affecting the vehicle as a whole, thereby enhancing the precision of determining whether a component requires maintenance or replacement. (See Adams, ¶¶ 21, 77-81.)
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/MARIO C GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights